Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What's really in the Obama Stimulus Package?

What's really in the Obama Stimulus Package?
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Have ANY OF YOU actually read the bill? Seems NOBODY has. it's bound to be full of traps.
The lobbyist got to read it. Congressional Offices Don't Have the Stimulus Bill, Lobbyists Do - Washington Whispers (usnews.com) Another promise down the drain and it hasn't been a month into BO's administration. Succeed or fail, this 100% BO and the (D)'s baby.

Those who have read some of the 1000+ page bill have found some interesting goodies. There is funding for a high speed train to LA to Vegas (Sen Reid). There is the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research that spacefreak pointed out. There is funding for neighborhood redevelopment groups (ACORN) There is also the rollback of Bill Clinton's much praised welfare reform act of 1996. (another "we're #1 to the Clintons!) How is rolling back the 1996 welfare reform act "stimulus"? This just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Who knows what else will be found.
( Last edited by Chongo; Feb 16, 2009 at 11:49 PM. )
45/47
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:31 AM
 
Soylent Green is people!

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 12:22 PM
 
Maybe it's been too long since Clinton was in office, but I have an honest question to the right wingers...

Did Democrats sound this whiny, bitter and pathetic during the Bush administration? Because when I read all of these threads they just come off as complete sour grapes driven right down the center of the party line.

It's almost as if it would be impossible for any of you guys to praise or condone a single thing Obama does... much like it was for liberals and Bush.

It was always, Bush did something, now lets spin it into something bad.

Can't we get past this bull****? Seriously? Can't we see what's happening here? I'm not saying that the stimulus plan is good. Hell, I think it pretty much sucks. But the nuances of the national and global economy are so far beyond my understanding that I have to sit back and put my faith in others and hope they can fix it. I hope this thing works. I hope something works.

I honestly believe that many people on this board enjoy seeing the country plummet into complete disaster so they can blame Obama and be right. They would rather be right then see Obama succeed.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
But the nuances of the national and global economy are so far beyond my understanding that I have to sit back and put my faith in others and hope they can fix it. I hope this thing works. I hope something works.
I think this is true for the vast majority of people. Including Obama. However we do have information from past recessions that can give us some inkling of what does and doesn't successfully stimulate the economy. Unfortunately both sides claim that this data supports their agenda. As a result I don't trust either side's position on this and want an explanation of why they're proposing what they're proposing and how they think it's going to improve things. Instead, we're just getting typical bureaucratic bullshit of 'we need to do something right now' without any reason to believe that the 'something' they're proposing is appropriate. I absolutely reject that approach no matter which side it's coming from.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 01:38 PM
 
With Bush they had the 2000 election "stealing" to whine about right off the bat. We'll never know if they would have latched on to something more arbitrary if they hadn't had that issue to grumble over.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
I ... want an explanation of why they're proposing what they're proposing and how they think it's going to improve things.
I suspect you've been given plenty of explanation, you just don't believe it so you disregard it. The whole "shovel-ready" meme can explain most of the projects we're hearing complaints about. The explanation is simple, that if the economy won't employ people, then the government will, fueled on debt, and when things are humming again then we can pay down the debt. Same as the spending we did in WWII. It's like using an electric motor to start an internal combustion engine turning and then siphoning energy from the engine to recharge the battery for the electric motor.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 02:03 PM
 
I also find it humorous that people think the Republican version of this bill would have less loopholes and pork. Both parties are completely beholden to special interests. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just delusional.

EDIT

Blah blah, but Obama promised hope and change. Obama said he was different blah blah

NEWS FLASH: Every politician who has ever run in the history of ever claims to be different and that they will be the guy to reach across party lines. ALL OF THEM. They are all liars. Even Obama.
( Last edited by ort888; Feb 16, 2009 at 02:10 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I suspect you've been given plenty of explanation, you just don't believe it so you disregard it. The whole "shovel-ready" meme can explain most of the projects we're hearing complaints about. The explanation is simple, that if the economy won't employ people, then the government will, fueled on debt, and when things are humming again then we can pay down the debt. Same as the spending we did in WWII. It's like using an electric motor to start an internal combustion engine turning and then siphoning energy from the engine to recharge the battery for the electric motor.
And yet there are people arguing that the proposed stimulus is qualitatively different from past, successful ones and more like past, unsuccessful ones. And now seems like a particularly bad time to lean even more heavily on our debt. The rest of the world isn't exactly swimming in cash right now either, and if any other countries decide that they need to call in their US debt we're screwed.

There are certainly things that we can do that will help, and begin to fix the situation. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have some good ideas that could work, they're not even mutually incompatible. But all that we're hearing from either side is how the other side is being too partisan and politicizing the issue, and how the other side should just bend over and take it in the interest of ramming this apparently contentious piece of legislation home.

And even still, very few if any of the proposed 'solutions' are actually solutions. They're just ways of coping with the problems caused by more basic issues in the way we do business.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I also find it humorous that people think the Republican version of this bill would have less loopholes and pork. Both parties are completely beholden to special interests. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just delusional.
Has there been a need for a "Republican version of this bill"? I know the last stimulus package was a Republican/Democrat version. I think we had another the year prior, but I think Dem's where still in control with Bush in charge, right?

Even so, when he had the last stimulus bills, how much went right back to the American people, or were given to investments that reasonable people could agree would at the very least be targeted toward stimulating the economy? What was the total cost?

These are things we can actually look at. I'm pretty sure the comparison wouldn't be pretty.
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 05:44 PM
 
I want to know how rolling back the Clinton 1996 welfare reform stimulates the economy.
45/47
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Maybe it's been too long since Clinton was in office, but I have an honest question to the right wingers...

Did Democrats sound this whiny, bitter and pathetic during the Bush administration? Because when I read all of these threads they just come off as complete sour grapes driven right down the center of the party line.
Yeah, I think they did. I wasn't a Democrat and I know I was bitching up a storm all through the Bush presidency.

Oh, I know you addressed this to the right wingers--whose complaints I think are ironic because it was right-wing deregulation and right-wing capitalism that made this mess--but I thought I'd chime in because, much as I like Obama, I'm concerned by this let's-spend-our-way-through-it philosophy to the crisis.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I want to know how rolling back the Clinton 1996 welfare reform stimulates the economy.
Putting more money in the hands of spendthrifts is what the whole concept of "stimulas [sic]" is all about. Did the 1996 welfare reform produce a net reduction in the amount of money passed out to spendthrifts?

What I want to know is when you're going to fix the typo in this thread's title that makes the OP look like a 3rd grader asked it...
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Did Democrats sound this whiny, bitter and pathetic during the Bush administration?
I don't know, does this guy ring a bell?

Originally Posted by ort888
He is getting better at reading off a card, but he is still not good at it. Watch what happens when someone asks him a question there is no pre-set answer to. He stumbles about like a fish out of water...
I'm guessing this criteria has become less important all of a sudden.

Originally Posted by ort888
Too bad the electoral collage was not what determined the outcome. The supreme court decided who would be president, exactly what our founding fathers wanted, right? If Gore is a born politician then what does that make Bush? He was born with a silver spoon in every oraface. If his daddy wasn't who he was, he would be working at a car dealership somewhere.
Leftist shills wonder why people refer to them as elitist. Gee ort, where do you work that you couldn't say one good thing about the President of the US?

Originally Posted by ort888
No, I do not like G.W. Bush. I like nothing about him and I am ashamed to live in a country that selected him as thier leader.
Leftist shills wonder why people always rail on them for short term memory. Gosh, can't we all just get along???

It's almost as if it would be impossible for any of you guys to praise or condone a single thing Obama does... much like it was for liberals and Bush. It was always, Bush did something, now lets spin it into something bad.
You would know.

Can't we get past this bull****? Seriously?
No, we can't. You'll have to endure this bull**** until Obama is pulled from office. It's called challenging his integrity and principle. The principles he formed into a platform that won him the presidency each and every one abandoned within a month. Unprecedented. People have absolutely every right to be as frustrated with this bill and with their representation as they were when an (R) was in office. At least he's being challenged on his policies and not the size of his ears or who his mommy and daddy were, get over it. What you're learning here is that Bush was not the source of the divisive nature of his Presidency, you were.

Can't we see what's happening here? I'm not saying that the stimulus plan is good. Hell, I think it pretty much sucks. But the nuances of the national and global economy are so far beyond my understanding that I have to sit back and put my faith in others and hope they can fix it. I hope this thing works. I hope something works.
On this we agree, but I can assure you this package will not work. It will suck so bad that we'll be talking about another $300+ billion by July. Mark my words. This is Obama's Iraq. Equal in cost and no exit strategy. The surge will come in the form of lost seats come 2010.

I honestly believe that many people on this board enjoy seeing the country plummet into complete disaster so they can blame Obama and be right. They would rather be right then see Obama succeed.
Yep. We're the new America-haters. See what's happening here? You'll be a conservative Republican by August.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
Oh, I know you addressed this to the right wingers--whose complaints I think are ironic because it was right-wing deregulation and right-wing capitalism that made this mess
I'm sorry, but this is pure, unadulterated BS. Republicans were fighting for regulation in 2004. In case you missed it; Republicans arguing for regulation, ridiculed by Dems

You can't just pick and choose distasteful behaviors and claim they are a Republican anomaly. Both sides of the aisle were all over this debacle.

--but I thought I'd chime in because, much as I like Obama, I'm concerned by this let's-spend-our-way-through-it philosophy to the crisis.
I share your concern. I think Obama would be a great guy to have a beer with, but these first days will be comparable to the worst start of any administration to date.
ebuddy
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 09:08 PM
 
Worst start to date? You recall that we had one who died a month into his term, right? Abandoning each and every one of his principles? Hyperbole much?

Anyway, I think it's premature to pass judgement on the impact of the stimulus bill, and I hope that when the next stimulus package starts to be wrangled over, that Republicans and their supporters will not start jabbering that "we told you so," because I think everybody realizes that there is going to be another one of these things. $800 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the economic damage out there. The size of the current stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the savings and loan bailout of the '80s (in inflation-adjusted dollars), which was a much smaller crisis.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 09:26 PM
 
So ebuddy, the short answer then is yes... yes the Democrats sounded that whiney?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 09:47 PM
 
A few choice things bear repeating:

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The principles he formed into a platform that won him the presidency each and every one abandoned within a month. Unprecedented.
AND

This is Obama's Iraq. Equal in cost and no exit strategy. The surge will come in the form of lost seats come 2010.
QFT
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 09:52 PM
 
So now we're admitting that Iraq was a failure? Is that's what's happening now?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Worst start to date? You recall that we had one who died a month into his term, right?
Boy..you got him there! You are SO right. The guy who died a month into his term did have it worse. Obama is only #2.

TAKE THAT EBUDDY!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
So now we're admitting that Iraq was a failure? Is that's what's happening now?
It is generally viewed to have been failing until the surge, yes. While there were many successes, the overall picture was bleak.

Are you somehow prepared to argue it wasn't? Like I said, you'll be a conservative Republican by August. A regular right winger. I'd wager one of the best kind and I for one would welcome you home.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
So now we're admitting that Iraq was a failure? Is that's what's happening now?
We are admitting that Iraq was an albatross successfully put around Bush's neck, which the opposition used to drag him down in the polls.

Obama is putting the albatross around his own neck, after swearing for months he was anti-bird.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It is generally viewed to have been failing until the surge, yes. While there were many successes, the overall picture was bleak.

Are you somehow prepared to argue it wasn't? Like I said, you'll be a conservative Republican by August. A regular right winger. I'd wager one of the best kind and I for one would welcome you home.
I can't wait! Do I get to be rich?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Worst start to date? You recall that we had one who died a month into his term, right?
You can of course see where this comparison falls a little flat SpaceMonkey? Let me go on record as saying as clearly as I know how; God help us all if something bad happens to our President.

Abandoning each and every one of his principles? Hyperbole much?
Let's discuss points of his platform, your choosing and I'll respond by using an aspect of this stimulus package to keep it relevant.

Anyway, I think it's premature to pass judgement on the impact of the stimulus bill, and I hope that when the next stimulus package starts to be wrangled over, that Republicans and their supporters will not start jabbering that "we told you so," because I think everybody realizes that there is going to be another one of these things.
Yeah that's why most oppose this one, let alone another one. When is it okay to pass judgement, the fourth one?

$800 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the economic damage out there. The size of the current stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the savings and loan bailout of the '80s (in inflation-adjusted dollars), which was a much smaller crisis.
Was it also a much smaller crisis in terms of "inflation-adjusted dollars"? I don't know, this point doesn't really make sense to me.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I can't wait! Do I get to be rich?
meh
ebuddy
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What I want to know is when you're going to fix the typo in this thread's title that makes the OP look like a 3rd grader asked it...
Sorry, Michelle was on TV at the moment I was typing and caught a glimpse of her stimulas
45/47
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You can of course see where this comparison falls a little flat SpaceMonkey? Let me go on record as saying as clearly as I know how; God help us all if something bad happens to our President.
Sorry, I did not intend to accuse you of wanting harm to come to President Obama. I was just trying to point out the hyperbole.

Yeah that's why most oppose this one, let alone another one. When is it okay to pass judgement, the fourth one?
No, I mean it is premature to say the stimulus plan has failed. You said: "It will suck so bad that we'll be talking about another $300+ billion by July. Mark my words." I'm saying we'll need a lot more money whether this particular package "works" or not.

Was it also a much smaller crisis in terms of "inflation-adjusted dollars"? I don't know, this point doesn't really make sense to me.
Correct.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2009, 11:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Boy..you got him there! You are SO right. The guy who died a month into his term did have it worse. Obama is only #2.

TAKE THAT EBUDDY!
Are you okay? You know this isn't a contest, it's a discussion.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Are you okay? You know this isn't a contest, it's a discussion.
...and sometimes in a discussion, people poke fun in order to lighten the mood.

I get it. Do you?
     
Ratm
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What's realy in the Obama Stimulas Package?
Umm, stimulus?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
...and sometimes in a discussion, people poke fun in order to lighten the mood.

I get it. Do you?
Sorry, it's hard to tell your hilarity from your hysterics.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Ratm View Post
Umm, stimulus?
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What I want to know is when you're going to fix the typo in this thread's title that makes the OP look like a 3rd grader asked it...
Sorry, Michelle was on TV at the moment I was typing and caught a glimpse of her stimulas
45/47
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 12:57 AM
 
So are you going to fix it soon?
     
Chongo  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So are you going to fix it soon?
Mod has to.
45/47
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:24 AM
 
Chongo: it's "stimulus"
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Sorry, it's hard to tell your hilarity from your hysterics.
The emoticon should have tipped you off. That's what they are there for. I'm sure though that sometimes it's hard to see the sanity staring out from the sanitarium.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 17, 2009 at 09:42 AM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
No, I mean it is premature to say the stimulus plan has failed.
My problem with this SpaceMonkey is not simply this plan, I opposed the bailouts under Bush as well as the "stimulus" checks of 2007. If we're going to talk about bailouts in relation to this particular stimulus package, you'll have to also include TARP, the other $700 billion dollars.

You said: "It will suck so bad that we'll be talking about another $300+ billion by July. Mark my words." I'm saying we'll need a lot more money whether this particular package "works" or not.
IMO this is a disingenuous point as a follow-up to your earlier statement of "The size of the current stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the savings and loan bailout of the '80s (in inflation-adjusted dollars), which was a much smaller crisis."
What you're really saying now is "the size of this stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the additional amount of bailout money needed to address this much larger crisis."

Furthermore, I wonder what the "inflation-adjusted" dollars of this bailout will be in our next phase of inflation. This stimulus money is coming from thin air SpaceMonkey.

Also given the gift of hindsight; isn't using the S&L bailout culminating in 1989 (just 20 years ago) a little defeating in light of the fact that here we are again? Given the failures of Bush's prior model of spend to stimulate, California's model of spend to stimulate and Japan's model of spend to stimulate; how is it premature to claim this will fail?

I don't need to wait to be hit in the head with a sledge hammer to know it's going to hurt real bad.

Correct.
Shall we retool this figure after the next phase of inflation?
ebuddy
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 08:54 AM
 
[QUOTE=ebuddy;3804038]I'm sorry, but this is pure, unadulterated BS. Republicans were fighting for regulation in 2004. In case you missed it; Republicans arguing for regulation, ridiculed by Dems
QUOTE]


The problem is that you don't really understand what is going on. The crisis is not due to Fannie Mae and Co, but to the very risky behaviors and greediness of banks and investors, along with the blindness of Clinton's and Bush's administrations (along with the "genius" who was chairman of the federal reserve) who where all too happy to see an economic growth during their respective mandate, and completely ignored the fact that both times that growth was artificial (internet speculation for one, and real estate speculation for the other). Had the real estate speculation not happened the present crisis would have happened at the end of Clinton's 8 years by the way.
The only long term way out of that would be a very lean period for the American people with higher taxes and better redistribution of wealth. This is why I don't like the stimulus which has too many tax cuts. These will help the people who already have the money to spend and don't spend it, rather than the people who would really need some of that money.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 09:49 AM
 
The problem is that you don't really understand what is going on.

Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
The crisis is not due to Fannie Mae and Co, but to the very risky behaviors and greediness of banks and investors, along with the blindness of Clinton's and Bush's administrations (along with the "genius" who was chairman of the federal reserve) who where all too happy to see an economic growth during their respective mandate, and completely ignored the fact that both times that growth was artificial (internet speculation for one, and real estate speculation for the other). Had the real estate speculation not happened the present crisis would have happened at the end of Clinton's 8 years by the way.
The same laws in question that allowed all the lending institutions to do what they do where being questioned back in 2004, and Republicans where requesting more oversight and regulation over this stuff. Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of the Democrat Motley Crew insisted there was no problem and that the Republicans where just looking for trouble.

The same thing that killed F&F killed everything else - the notion that the government supported, encouraged and allowed lending institutions to give mortgages to people who were under-qualified and would help with their GSE's if there was trouble. The problem was, there was more "trouble" than the GSE's could handle. The Republicans tried to institute change, but the Democrats fought tooth and nail.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 09:55 AM
 
The problem is not due to 'the very risky behaviors and greediness of banks and investors'. The problem is due to government policies and corporate cultures that allowed and even encouraged those risky behaviors. What we're experiencing right now is nearly identical to what happened to Japan: an intense conflict between policy and reality.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The emoticon should have tipped you off. That's what they are there for. I'm sure though that sometimes it's hard to see the sanity staring out from the sanitarium.
See, I've never interpreted as friendly.

That's what or or are for.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 10:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My problem with this SpaceMonkey is not simply this plan, I opposed the bailouts under Bush as well as the "stimulus" checks of 2007. If we're going to talk about bailouts in relation to this particular stimulus package, you'll have to also include TARP, the other $700 billion dollars.
Fair enough.


IMO this is a disingenuous point as a follow-up to your earlier statement of "The size of the current stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the savings and loan bailout of the '80s (in inflation-adjusted dollars), which was a much smaller crisis."
What you're really saying now is "the size of this stimulus bill isn't even an order of magnitude removed from the additional amount of bailout money needed to address this much larger crisis."
I think I'm still not making my point clear. Basically, a certain amount of wealth disappeared from the economy as a result of the Savings and Loan Crisis, and the government injected a substantial amount of money into the economy as a result. We're now talking about the disappearance of several times the amount of wealth as disappeared in the S&L crisis. All I am saying is that there is going to be another stimulus package, because the one that passed last week is not big enough relative to the crisis, not because it's not going to "work."

Furthermore, I wonder what the "inflation-adjusted" dollars of this bailout will be in our next phase of inflation. This stimulus money is coming from thin air SpaceMonkey.
Most economists are now worried more about deflation, rather than inflation.

Also given the gift of hindsight; isn't using the S&L bailout culminating in 1989 (just 20 years ago) a little defeating in light of the fact that here we are again? Given the failures of Bush's prior model of spend to stimulate, California's model of spend to stimulate and Japan's model of spend to stimulate; how is it premature to claim this will fail?
No, because that was a more specific problem. It's not really related to what's going on now.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It is generally viewed to have been failing until the surge, yes. While there were many successes, the overall picture was bleak.
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
We are admitting that Iraq was an albatross successfully put around Bush's neck, which the opposition used to drag him down in the polls.

Looks like interpretations differ.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Looks like interpretations differ.
Yet in both cases, the answer to the original question would be "false".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:15 PM
 
So, you are saying to call the stimulus "Obama's Iraq" is a bad analogy?
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, you are saying to call the stimulus "Obama's Iraq" is a bad analogy?
Not by my interpretation. My view is that it doesn't actually have to be a total failure to be used in order against him. Seeing how it likely will be, that only helps.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not by my interpretation. My view is that it doesn't actually have to be a total failure to be used in order against him. Seeing how it likely will be, that only helps.

I get that part.

What I'm confused about is your implication the analogy breaks down WRT the personal responsibility one can assign for being "albatrossed" to the respective presidents.

You state Obama hung this around his own neck, as opposed to Bush, who...

?
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 04:18 PM
 
What's really in the Obama Stimulas Package?

A new stadium for the Nets: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131725.html
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 06:35 PM
 
Here's a pretty good breakdown of the final bill:

http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by villalobos View Post
The problem is that you don't really understand what is going on.
No. The problem is that you're not following the flow of the conversation and you've spilled your naiveté all over this thread in the meantime. The person I addressed claimed it was "right-wing deregulation" and "right-wing capitalism" that got us into this mess. Until you're prepared to explain how the Democrats who fought regulation in 2004 are your traditional "right-wingers" or how it is that Democrats aren't as "capitalist" as anyone else, perhaps you should post in the iPod forum.

The crisis is not due to Fannie Mae and Co, but to the very risky behaviors and greediness of banks and investors, along with the blindness of Clinton's and Bush's administrations (along with the "genius" who was chairman of the federal reserve) who where all too happy to see an economic growth during their respective mandate, and completely ignored the fact that both times that growth was artificial (internet speculation for one, and real estate speculation for the other). Had the real estate speculation not happened the present crisis would have happened at the end of Clinton's 8 years by the way.
There was a veritable explosion in financing options starting in 2001 that caused a relative surge in lending. Everyone was getting a home. Had we not held on to low interest rates too long causing the housing bubble, we would not have had near as large a burst. Were Freddie and Fannie involved? Hell yeah! Even though these are private companies, they are backed by the Federal dole and enjoyed even lower interest rates. Where you're wrong is not including the greedy Joe Sixpack who got himself into a time-bomb mortgage on a property he really couldn't afford to live in. A subprime situation of doubling house payments within a couple years. Subprimes that would soon become toxic. You may have noticed I'm not one of those leftist shills who buys off on the notion that people were forced into bad loans at gun point. As the stock market began to weaken, creativity began to strengthen in the form of default swaps and increasing investments in all aspects of real estate. Bad loans became toxic on top of horrible gas prices busting our automobile industry, combined with banks holding assets as opposed to their historically aggressive lending practice, the subsequent free-fall of housing values, the market, then jobs, then finally consumer confidence which produces over 60% of our economy. If I've judged you wrong though, you're smart and you've been a good steward of your finances and are likely still getting just as many loan offers as you always have. Problem is, you're staying your hand to see what the market does.

Now we have a correction from the bloated state of a fictitious economy in that I grant you. I've been saying this for some time. Where we differ is your notion that "bankers" and "investors" are evil and the lowest quintiles of our economy are the hope. The economy and its ups and downs are much more complex than you seem willing to admit as it is "greed" that often times drives it in the form of legitimate business growth, spending, and jobs. You know, the stuff we're supposedly trying to stimulate right now. BTW, you might want to ditch that 401k before your eyes turn red and your head starts spinning 360° as the evil, greedy investor that you are. There were those who were blowing whistles, but unfortunately they were blowing them into a friggin' vacuum.

The only long term way out of that would be a very lean period for the American people with higher taxes and better redistribution of wealth.
You start off by implicating Clinton, Bush, and the Fed Chair for failing us and your solution begins with more tax revenue into the very system that failed us? Egadz man, logic much? On one point we may agree and that is the "lean period" or what I'd refer to as simply a correction of a fictitious, bloated system prior. People must simply be allowed to succeed or fail on the merits of their own financial stewardship. We've done the bailout game before and they're right back at the table.

This is why I don't like the stimulus which has too many tax cuts. These will help the people who already have the money to spend and don't spend it, rather than the people who would really need some of that money.
You've not really thought this through much have you? Too many tax cuts? I disagree. Instead of a 700+ page document of creative ways to get money into your pocket, they need to simply take less out to begin with and it won't cost us over a trillion dollars to do it. This relief in tandem with also cutting the corporate tax rate, income tax rate, and the AMT will be just the business friendly, pro-capital good news stimulant the market needs right now. With good news comes increased investment, risk-taking, increased spending, increased growth, and increased job numbers.

What you're advocating is handing a guy who's down on his luck a couple hundred dollars to get him through to next month which is a noble gesture, but then what? Another stimulus? I understand your concern for the bottom 8%, but this comes at the expense of the remaining 92% of the country. i.e. the US economy.

Conclusion; your idea sucks bad and has no regard for what creates wealth, jobs, and an economy to even bitch about.
ebuddy
     
villalobos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2009, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
What's really in the Obama Stimulas Package?

A new stadium for the Nets: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131725.html
Did you actually read what you linked?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,