2009 Economic stimulus ?'s......

Black1 said:
It's a sad truth.... Why do we VOTE for people that never read or understand legislation, let alone VOTE on said legislation? :dontknow: Why do the "staff" have the duty of writing such legislation, knowing full well they are not ELECTED representatives of the Union? :confused: I guess, what you are saying is, there are hourly paid staff members that haven't been elected by the people of this Country writing legislation and inserting verbage that is not understood or cared about? How are these people being regulated? Are they being paid by special interest groups? .........

If I were a Congressman, and have not seen a $770 MILLION piece of legislation... not even had a CHANCE to read it, even if I wanted to.... I would most certainly vote "NO" to pass such legislation. Wouldn't you? :confused: :dontknow:




Not NO, but HELL NO!!!!!!:congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :congrats: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:
 
Here is a pretty good article.


Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no
By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending.

"It's unfocused. That is my problem. It is a lot of money for a lot of nickel-and- dime programs. I would have rather had a lot of money for (promoting purchase of) housing and autos . . . . Most of this plan is really, I think, aimed at stabilizing the situation and helping people get through the recession, rather than getting us out of the recession. They are actually providing less short-term stimulus by cutting back, from what I understand, some of the tax credits."

House and Senate negotiators this week narrowed the differences between their competing stimulus plans. In so doing, they scrapped a large tax credit for buying automobiles that would've caused positive ripple effects across the manufacturing sector. They settled instead on letting purchasers of new vehicles deduct from their federal taxes the state and local sales taxes on the cars they bought.

The exception to this is for buyers of plug-in hybrids, cars that run off a battery that can be charged at home or in the office. Buyers of these vehicles, available in very limited supply, could get a tax credit of up to $9,100.

A Republican-backed proposal that would've provided a $15,000 tax credit to first-time homebuyers also was scaled back dramatically. Instead, the compromise provides first-time homebuyers a tax credit of up to $8,000, and it doesn't have to be repaid over the life of the mortgage. Incentives already in place offer buyers a $7,500 credit that must be repaid, so the bill is an improvement, but short of what many economists think is necessary.

Another reason that some analysts frown on the stimulus is the social spending it includes on things such as the Head Start program for disadvantaged children and aid to NASA for climate-change research. Both may be worthy efforts, but they aren't aimed at delivering short-term boosts to economic activity.

"All this is 25 years of government expansion jammed into one bill and sold as stimulus," said Brian Riedl, the director of budget analysis for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research group.

The view wasn't much more supportive on the other side of the political spectrum. In a brief on the stimulus compromise, William Galston, a senior fellow at the center-left Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House adviser, warned Thursday that a bank-rescue plan being finalized will make the $789 billion look like "pocket change."

"While the stimulus bill is a necessary condition for economic stabilization and recovery, it is hardly sufficient," Galston wrote. "As the lesson of Japan in the 1990s shows, fiscal stimulus without financial rescue yields stagnation — at best."

" . . . Serious observers believe that recovery cannot begin until we acknowledge that losses in the financial system amount to some trillions of dollars, rendering many institutions insolvent. The temptation will be to muddle along, hoping that these institutions can gradually regain strength without putting massive amounts of taxpayers' money at risk. If we go down that road, we are likely to end up with zombie banks whose balance sheets are riddled with near-worthless investments — banks that cannot lend to credit-worthy customers and who cannot trust one another," Galston wrote.

With the economy in a tailspin, doing nothing isn't an option, however.

"Something is better than nothing, and bigger was better than smaller in terms of the stimulus needed," said Chris Varvares, president of prominent forecaster Macroeconomic Advisers in St. Louis. "The economy needs a fiscal jolt."

Even some proponents of a stimulus are disappointed, however. Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, was an early supporter. He said that government is now the only engine left to spark economic activity, but he said that the compromise falls short of what's needed.

"If the choice is between the current bill and an improved bill, I would say wait and improve the bill," Feldstein told CNBC on Wednesday after the compromise was announced. "I am disappointed with the structure of this bill."

Like Yardeni and other analysts, Feldstein wanted more incentives for consumers to make big purchases that have ripple effects across the economy. When a car is purchased, it helps not only the carmaker, but its suppliers, the trucking companies and railroads that transport cars, the states that issue license plates and so on.

Still, could this stimulus get the U.S. economy back on its feet?

By itself, probably not. The stimulus plan, however, is supposed to work in tandem with new efforts by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to rid banks of distressed assets that are poisoning their balance sheets, and with other federal efforts to halt mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures. Much will depend on the details of both federal attack plans, which the Obama administration promises are coming soon.

There's also the problem of time. Much of the stimulus is to be spread over a two-year period or longer — and 2009 looks increasingly bleak.

A Wall Street Journal survey of 52 mainstream economic forecasters published Thursday found that while most forecasters still think there could be slow growth by the second half of the year, that won't offset steeper-than-projected declines in the first half of 2009.

That means this is essentially a lost year for the economy. Most scenarios envision the economy picking back up again next year.

The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a speech in Detroit Thursday, tried to put a brave face on the tough year ahead. Thomas Donohue acknowledged that big business didn't get in the stimulus bill some of the tax-relief measures it most wanted, but promised the Chamber's support.

"The bottom line is that at the end of the day, we're going to support the legislation. Why? Because with the markets functioning so poorly, the government is the only game in town capable of jump-starting the economy," Donohue said.
 
Was talking to a banker the other day...he made the point that there are good banks and bad banks and that one of the big mistakes from his perspective is to not determine which is which so that we don't just reward bail out the bad with the good.

I doubt that we will do that, but it is a great thought.

By the way as we continued our discussion, he told me that he uses the same financial institution that controls many of my resources...USAA Federal Savings Bank.

If you have been in the service or are the off spring of a service member, you are eligible to be a member...they are a mutual bank that returns excess earnings to the members.

Some points about USAA...

1. They keep mortgages...they have them serviced externally, but never bundle and sell the paper.

2. Their insurance products are very highly rated, some of the best in the industry.

3. Their insurance rates are very competitive, not always the very lowest but usually close. But their customer service is rated as perfect! They never question a claim...they do not select the lowest estimate for repairs...they ask you who you would prefer to have do the repairs.

If you are a service member, or the off spring of a service member check them out!
 
I've heard of USAA. The nearest one I know if is in San Antonio where some AFB's are.. I met a pretty Human Resources manager for USAA that moved to San Antonio from Chicago recently.. Roy's post makes me want to start nailing her.. Thanks Roy.:D
 








It was just announced that none of my federal government represntatives were allowed to participate in the construction of, nor even afforded time to read this new stupidass er' stimulus plan bill which is going to result in even more of the already taxed money that I and other hard working people EARNED being FORCEBLY sucked into and consumed by the giant BLACK HOLE that our federal government has become.

When taxes are imposed on a people by an entity that totally excludes said peoples elected representatives coudn't that be interprited as "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION".

Been awhile but I seem to recall something about a little "FRACAS" that resulted over the issue of "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" some years ago.
JOHN T HARGRAVES
"AMERICAN"
15,FEB. 2009


 
They could file a freedom of information act request like the rest of us and get a copy...:D

John...you need to think about the comment "none of my federal government representatives were allowed..."

First, how many of your elected representatives are "Hard Core Libertarians"...and just stop and think about the word "allowed"...there are lots of definitions of the word...

You are so humorous. :p :D
 
Prof said:
They could file a freedom of information act request like the rest of us and get a copy...:D

John...you need to think about the comment "none of my federal government representatives were allowed..."

First, how many of your elected representatives are "Hard Core Libertarians"...and just stop and think about the word "allowed"...there are lots of definitions of the word...

You are so humorous. :p :D


The current Rep's that happen to be from my location are republican, and unless a couple of sources are broadcasting false info then none were allowed input.
 
Last edited:
this is what I think of the stimulus package:D
 

Attachments

  • ClearPinkPassionPlugLarge-ia-2-ib-2423-350x350.jpg
    ClearPinkPassionPlugLarge-ia-2-ib-2423-350x350.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 12
as more and more financial experts get there paws on this billt the scarier shit starts to come out here's another pretty good article.

Hey stinker that is without lube right:D :bootyshake:


MONEYNETDAILY
Federal obligations exceed world GDP
Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 13, 2009
11:35 pm Eastern


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

"As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does not reflect any significant money [from] the financial bailout or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year," economist John Williams, who publishes the Internet website Shadow Government Statistics, told WND.

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve," he said.

"The federal government's deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace which threatens the viability of the financial system," Williams added. "The popularly reported 2009 [deficit] will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and that full amount has to be funded by Treasury borrowing.

"It's not likely this will happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort for the Treasury by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt," he said.

"Monetizing the debt" is a term used to signify that the Federal Reserve will be required simply to print cash to meet the Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge of amount debt elsewhere.

The Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including OPEC buyers purchasing U.S. debt through London.

"The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis," Williams noted.





"Truthfully," Williams pointed out, "there is no Social Security 'lock-box.' There are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations that are earned each year. It's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt and no taxes are being held in reserve to pay in the future the Social Security and Medicare benefits taxpayers are earning today."

Calculations from the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" also show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion.

The $65.5 trillion total federal obligations under GAAP accounting not only now exceed four times the U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, the $65.5 trillion deficit exceeds total world GDP.

"In the seven years of GAAP reporting, we have seen an annual average deficit in excess of $4 trillion, which could not be possibly covered by any form of taxation," Williams argued.

"Shy of the government severely slashing social welfare programs, federal deficits of this magnitude are beyond any hope of containment, government or otherwise," he said.

"Put simply, there is no way the government can possibly pay for the level of social welfare benefits the federal government has promised unless the government simply prints cash and debases the currency, which the government will increasingly be doing this year," Williams said, explaining in more detail why he feels the government is now in the process of monetizing the federal debt.

"Social Security and Medicare must be shown as liabilities on the federal balance sheet in the year they accrue according to GAAP accounting," Williams argues. "To do otherwise is irresponsible, nothing more than an attempt to hide the painful truth from the American public. The public has a right to know just how bad off the federal government budget deficit situation really is, especially since the situation is rapidly spinning out of control.

"The federal government is bankrupt," Williams told WND. "In a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."
 
You do understand that all of the dire circumstances mentioned in the material you pasted, were created by our most recent ex-President...and I agree he and his people should be in prison.
 
Prof said:
You do understand that all of the dire circumstances mentioned in the material you pasted, were created by our most recent ex-President...and I agree he and his people should be in prison.

Blaming the current situation on the Bush administration is just wrong. A LOT of the policies that led up to our current meltdown were begun several administrations ago. I'm not taking up for W, I think he's a moron and the worst President we've had (in recent history at least), but blaming him for everything is not fair nor correct...again, in my opinion.
 
I think not blaming an administration that more than doubled the national debt in eight years, and cut taxes at the same time is just pure hogwash...

The national debt was declining the last two years of the previous administration and only started going in the wrong direction under the Bush administration. One of the rules of responsibility is being accountable for what happens on your watch. We all know how terrible Bush was...on the 20th of January it became Obama's problem. The increase in the debt for 2009 will be his issue, not W's.

Steve if you start avoiding responsibility by saying other people's action caused the problems of the current administration the arguments have no possibility of being resolved...here is my argument to your comment: If the damn British had dedicated more resources to putting down the revolutionary war we would not have the problems that we currently have...and that argument has much more substance and validity than any blame you can put on any administration before George W.

Get a grip!
 
Prof said:
I think not blaming an administration that more than doubled the national debt in eight years, and cut taxes at the same time is just pure hogwash...

The national debt was declining the last two years of the previous administration and only started going in the wrong direction under the Bush administration. One of the rules of responsibility is being accountable for what happens on your watch. We all know how terrible Bush was...on the 20th of January it became Obama's problem. The increase in the debt for 2009 will be his issue, not W's.

Steve if you start avoiding responsibility by saying other people's action caused the problems of the current administration the arguments have no possibility of being resolved...here is my argument to your comment: If the damn British had dedicated more resources to putting down the revolutionary war we wound not have the problems that we currently have...and that argument has much more substance and validity than any blame you can put on any administration before George W.

Get a grip!

Well Roy, a lot of folks (including me) have given a lot for me to have an opinion and I have one that is different than yours, which you also have an equal right to. I have a solid grip, if you think all this shit was created by Bush alone, I suggest you get one.
 
It's not an issue of who caused it. A leader must be accountable for solving problem or not. Bush did not solve the economic issues that surfaced during his administration, period. If you have a company that fails because of contracts that the previous owner signed...who's fault is the failure...you may subscribe to the notion that it is the fault of the person who signed the contracts...I think it is the fault of the person who was in charge when the company goes under.

Excuses are just that excuses.

Now it is up to the current President to solve the problems...if he does super, if he doesn't...no one should be saying that the problems he was saddled with caused his down fall. The President either solves problems or succumbs to them.
 
Prof said:
It's not an issue of who caused it. A leader must be accountable for solving problem or not. Bush did not solve the economic issues that surfaced during his administration, period. If you have a company that fails because of contracts that the previous owner signed...who's fault is the failure...you may subscribe to the notion that it is the fault of the person who signed the contracts...I think it is the fault of the person who was in charge when the company goes under.

Excuses are just that excuses.

Now it is up to the current President to solve the problems...if he does super, if he doesn't...no one should be saying that the problems he was saddled with caused his down fall. The President either solves problems or succumbs to them.

Well, as I said, we both have an opinion, and we have stated them.
 

Well when this montrosity goes into effect Bush will look like a miser.:(


.
 
Prof said:
You do understand that all of the dire circumstances mentioned in the material you pasted, were created by our most recent ex-President...and I agree he and his people should be in prison.
No way.........:confused: It's the Black dudes doing ;) :D Depends highly on whose agenda your pushing....Obama bashers have no sense...quick knee jerk reactions to reading Right slanted drivel and the lack of 4 functioning brain cells not dedicated to involuntary bodily functions....what else would you expect. Critical thinking is passé in a celluloid laden give it to me now world. Common sense is a uncommon virtue :congrats: :congrats:
 
TheSickness said:
No way.........:confused: It's the Black dudes doing ;) :D :

No way, look they are all honkys:D
 

Attachments

  • mba0433l.jpg
    mba0433l.jpg
    34.3 KB · Views: 19

Latest posts

Support Us

Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top