House Passes $819 Billion Economic Stimulus

get a hobby
Originally Posted by 3cCurly
I think you should give it up. You keep digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Originally Posted by misspam
+1
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Stimulus, Illustrated

And kudos to the House GOP for doing the right thing.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Amen. Maybe if the Dems weren't filling it up with every frickin' piece of pork that they've been denied for the last 40 yrs. The fact that they have blocked every single attempt to reign in the mortgage industry since the early 90s, and forced through giving a loan to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wanted one, regardless of whether or not they could pay it back is apparently irrelevant. And who were the biggest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Christopher Dodd and tah dah, the new president.
My son wears combat boots (and a parachute).
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.



For those who think it's a bad idea:

What are your suggestions?
Originally Posted by wild~hair
The corporate taxes here in the US are among the highest in the industrialized world. 35%. Cut them and corporate wealthfare would diminish. Cut the 'windfall' profit taxes down to 10% for the next 2 years, allow people who make money to turn around and plow it back into the economy...and they will. Reagan proved that. How about dropping taxes on the wealthy? Right now the top 1% (including The One) pay over 60% of the taxes now.

It's incredibly stupid to try to combat an economy in trouble with MORE taxes. Look at your personal budget. When money is tight, you cut back. You don't turn around and give the government money voluntarily.

Yes, our infrastructure needs work. What happened to toll roads? When it is paid for, the tolls stop. We did it for decades that way.

WHY are higher taxes the answer to a troubled economy? WHY is $335M for STDs necessary?

Read Thomas Sowell's columns or books. The man is brilliant and does an excellent job at explaining the economy to the average citizen and layman. And since that is the money that Congress is so 'brilliantly' handling....we need to understand it and know what is going on.

Susan
My son wears combat boots (and a parachute).
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.



Republican governors support stimulus plan? What's up with that? Even you know, Sarah also too there you betcha wink-wink Palin is lobbying for it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...pass-stimulus/
^^^
RCW, I agree that our infrastructure is a mess and we need to invest in mass transit. The WSJ editorial about the stimulus bill was complaining about the $1 billion for Amtrak. Uh, how many times have we bailed out the airlines? And trains carry more people and are more resourceful.
Originally Posted by BB
They were complaining about Amtrak because it's been failing for the past 40 some odd years. And many of these same people did not want the airlines bailed out either. The airline industry in America is a joke. It is not competitive or efficient.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Actually, since gas prices have gone up, airline ridership has gone down and train ridership has gone up. Same thing with buses, ie, mass transp.
Wavy, curly on the ends, 2C.
Coarse to medium textured, porous, dry, and lots of it.
Shampoo--HSH Pumpkin, Abba Pure Moisture
LVPNG, HSH Pumpkin, Walgreen's Knockoffs--Condish/Cowash
AOHR, Nexxus, EO--LI
CK & ReCoil--Activator
Suave Max Hold, Alagio Curl-Gel
For inquiring minds who want to know:
http://www.public.fotki.com/TillyErnissee
And kudos to the House GOP for doing the right thing.
Originally Posted by CottonCandyCurls
Amen. Maybe if the Dems weren't filling it up with every frickin' piece of pork that they've been denied for the last 40 yrs. The fact that they have blocked every single attempt to reign in the mortgage industry since the early 90s, and forced through giving a loan to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wanted one, regardless of whether or not they could pay it back is apparently irrelevant. And who were the biggest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Christopher Dodd and tah dah, the new president.
Originally Posted by susancnw
I am not being snarky, but is it really true that Democrats FORCED banks to give loans to people who have no way of paying them back? They forced banks/creditors to sign off on $200 mortgages with no money down? This was legislated?
Wavy, curly on the ends, 2C.
Coarse to medium textured, porous, dry, and lots of it.
Shampoo--HSH Pumpkin, Abba Pure Moisture
LVPNG, HSH Pumpkin, Walgreen's Knockoffs--Condish/Cowash
AOHR, Nexxus, EO--LI
CK & ReCoil--Activator
Suave Max Hold, Alagio Curl-Gel
For inquiring minds who want to know:
http://www.public.fotki.com/TillyErnissee
No, the Democrats didn't force the banks to make loans to people who had no way of paying the loan. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in the 90s to allow - key word being allow - lenders to consider non-traditional ways to establishing credit worthiness. No one should have taken out a loan they couldn't pay back and bankers shouldn't have loaned money if there was not evidence that the loan could be repaid. The CRA didn't say you don't look at the credit score. The CRA didn't say you don't have to know if the person didn't have a job.

What are non-traditional ways to establish credit worthiness? Paying your rent on time (rent is not usually reported to the credit bureau). Neither is employment stability but those can be considered with the CRA.
Wow. I just ignored her, too. First time I've done that.
The fact that they have blocked every single attempt to reign in the mortgage industry since the early 90s, and forced through giving a loan to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wanted one, regardless of whether or not they could pay it back is apparently irrelevant. And who were the biggest recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Christopher Dodd and tah dah, the new president.
Originally Posted by susancnw
Wow, the more I read about this the more the statement is laughable. Of course the banking industry wanted more regulation, but the Dems wouldn't let them, ha ha.

The Democrats legislated that the banks lend out $30 for every $1 of actual capital. Of course. Along with no money down loans, $300K mortgages for people making $30K, and forget making people to show proof of employment. That was all forced on the banks by the Dems. Yeah right. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is.
Wavy, curly on the ends, 2C.
Coarse to medium textured, porous, dry, and lots of it.
Shampoo--HSH Pumpkin, Abba Pure Moisture
LVPNG, HSH Pumpkin, Walgreen's Knockoffs--Condish/Cowash
AOHR, Nexxus, EO--LI
CK & ReCoil--Activator
Suave Max Hold, Alagio Curl-Gel
For inquiring minds who want to know:
http://www.public.fotki.com/TillyErnissee
The Culprit Is All of Us

By SCOTT S. POWELL

The government's meddling got us into this mess.



CONTRARY TO A VIEW POPULARIZED DURING THE 2008 presidential election season, the current economic crisis was not the result of deregulation.
The Bush administration made many mistakes, but deregulation was not one of them.
Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.
The bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 to prevent corporate fraud and restore investor confidence after the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. It failed to prevent the accounting fraud and influence-peddling scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And even after those scandals were widely understood, regulators sent Fannie and Freddie back into the market to continue buying subprime loans, lending and borrowing with implied taxpayer backing.
Across the government, the Bush administration supported new regulations that added almost 1,000 pages a year to the Federal Register, nearly a record. If this is insufficient regulation, it's hard to imagine a scope that would be effective.
We are in this mess largely because critical thought and moral judgment have been subordinated to the politicization of our economy, resulting in regulatory gaps and excessive controls of the wrong kind.
Government regulations should be limited to those that increase and protect transparency and competition, protect public and private property, promote individual responsibility and enforce equal opportunity under the law. Even if the right laws and regulations could be found, they would prove insufficient to protect freedom and prosperity.
The Foundation of Economics
In his farewell address, George Washington said that religion and morality are essential to sustain democracy in America. He might well have added that virtue is just as indispensable to its economy. When the captains of banking and finance and their congressional overseers fail in moral judgment, the results are disastrous for everyone. As we are now witnessing in the real-estate, stock- and bond-market dislocations, once trust is lost, markets freeze and long-standing relationships break down, resulting in illiquidity, irrational pricing and severe losses.
Today's problems have their roots in programs and financial instruments that shifted the locus of moral responsibility away from private individuals and institutions to wider circles that were understood to end with a government guarantee. Heads of the top banks and financial institutions could approve substandard home-mortgage underwriting -- prone to increased default -- because those loans could be securitized by Wall Street and sold off to investors or to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), with no likely recourse to the financial institution of origin.
Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages. With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans. In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.
No Surprise
The risk lurking in the GSE portfolios was acknowledged in the Bush administration's first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. It stated that Fannie and Freddie were "a potential problem" because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in the financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued repeated warnings that the GSEs "placed the total financial system of the future at substantial risk." Such warnings went unheeded even after accounting scandals rocked Fannie and Freddie.
The collapse and government seizure of Fannie and Freddie in September 2008 ended the experiment in partial socialization of the U.S. housing sector. Before we try complete concentration of federal financial power, we should understand that power and political corruption abrogated moral judgment on every level.
The poor and middle class were encouraged to live beyond their means and buy houses they couldn't afford; speculators were lured into excessive risk-taking; banks were rewarded for lowering their loan standards; and Wall Street found new windfall profits from securitizing and reselling bad loans in bulk. With the support of regulators, credit-rating agencies provided cover for the whole charade.
Spreading Failure
There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political aisle. But the lesson should be clear that socializing failed businesses -- whether in housing, health care or in Detroit -- is not a long-term solution. Expanding government's intrusion into the private sector doesn't come without great risk. The renewing and self-correcting nature of the private sector is largely lost in the public sector, where accountability is impaired by obfuscation of responsibility, and where special interests benefit even when the public good is ill-served.
George Washington also warned against excessive partisanship, which distracts public councils and enfeebles public administration. Rather than blaming the party in power or the party formerly in power, the nation should stop living in denial of the mistakes of both parties.
Spreading failure across the entire economy risks turning a recession into a depression. Regulatory reform now must foster responsible behavior and financial accountability. Far better for our citizenry and businesses to have a strength and resourcefulness that comes from creativity, honesty and self-reliance than to have a growing dependence on a profligate government.
SCOTT S. POWELL is a senior VP at ELP Capital, which manages a commercial real-estate debt-based hedge fund; a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution; and a Commerce Bridge board member.

.




The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
Scarlet - Thanks for the great article.
Nicely done Scarlett...I've been doing some more reading and research lately...we've had several downturns in our economy in the 1900s...and the worst one was the one that the government 'helped'. They helped extend it for years. According to the stimulus, it will take 2 years to get the money out. If the gov't would keep it's fat nose out of it, we'd have recovered by then on our own.

This is a huge attack on capitalism and the free market.

And, thanks to CRA and ACORN, banks were forced to give loans to people with no way of paying them back. My BIL sat in a conference with a couple buying a $600K plus house, the mortgage would be the same amount (within literally $25) of their take home pay and threatened to bring in a lawyer if they were not allowed to buy it. This was less than 5 years ago...he kept an eye on it. They lost the house in less than 2 years. And this was the Houston area, where $600K will buy you a hell of a house. It wasn't that far from their home and he'd drive by on the way home. They couldn't afford the house or maintenance. It looked awful, no landscaping of any sort, no curtains, etc. ACORN uses threats of lawsuits, boycotting, media, PR, anything they can to force their agenda and they stand to get $4B out of this stimulus plan.

This bill is a load of crap, it is mortgaging my kids, grandkids and great grandkids' futures.

Mr. President, you are whining that you inherited this mess, but you VOTED in lockstep with the other Democrats (and Republicans) over the chicken little stuff that was being forced on us back in the fall.

The Dems need to step back and stop treating the stimulus as a chance to get all their social programs passed that have been denied in the last 20 years. Stop acting like children in a candy store and act responsibility. It would help if the president stopped trying to force this down our throats...talk about fear mongering.
My son wears combat boots (and a parachute).
The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.



My husband ran into an old neighbor of ours a couple days ago. She moved to the US from Poland I am guessing maybe 25-30 years ago. She said she came from a socialistic country and was afraid we were headed in that direction. She said whatever we have, even with its problems, is better than going to socialism and she sure hopes we stop before it's too late.
3b/c
My husband ran into an old neighbor of ours a couple days ago. She moved to the US from Poland I am guessing maybe 25-30 years ago. She said she came from a socialistic country and was afraid we were headed in that direction. She said whatever we have, even with its problems, is better than going to socialism and she sure hopes we stop before it's too late.
Originally Posted by munchkin
I thought Poland was communist 30 years ago.


Blog
My husband ran into an old neighbor of ours a couple days ago. She moved to the US from Poland I am guessing maybe 25-30 years ago. She said she came from a socialistic country and was afraid we were headed in that direction. She said whatever we have, even with its problems, is better than going to socialism and she sure hopes we stop before it's too late.
Originally Posted by munchkin
I thought Poland was communist 30 years ago.
Originally Posted by Trenell
Maybe it's hard when you are living the life to see the difference.

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism and communism are both economic systems (the production, distribution, and use of wealth) that require that goods be owned in common, instead of privately. The difference between the two systems is in the fact that socialism covers a wide range of political systems, including communism, whereas communism is a strict interpretation of socialism. While socialism advocates communal ownership of industry, it does so in two ways: either in the form of state ownership or else in the form of ownership by the workers themselves. Communism, on the other hand, allows for only one form of the communal endeavor: state ownership through a small group of political elite. Communism also goes one step further than socialism in that the Communist state not only controls the economy, but all areas of society.


All I know is she said she would never like to go back to something like that and she sees our country headed in that direction.
3b/c
Is it that she really sees the country heading to communism or has she been hearing people say "Oh no. Obama is for universal healthcare and that's socialism and that's really code for communism" Perhaps echos from the campaign scare tactics.

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't see us going completely socialist. And there is a HUGE difference between what is going on today and postwar communist Poland.


Blog
Is it that she really sees the country heading to communism or has she been hearing people say "Oh no. Obama is for universal healthcare and that's socialism and that's really code for communism" Perhaps echos from the campaign scare tactics.

Maybe I'm naive, but I really don't see us going completely socialist. And there is a HUGE difference between what is going on today and postwar communist Poland.
Originally Posted by Trenell
I think a lot of people see a lot of little steps could end up being a big step in that direction: universal healthcare, nationalization of banks (which I don't see but is being talked about) -- are they just things we need or the beginning of something much bigger?

I'm sure if you are someone who came from a country rooted in socialism / communism it can seem like a start in that direction.
3b/c

I'm sure if you are someone who came from a country rooted in socialism / communism it can seem like a start in that direction.
Originally Posted by munchkin
I totally understand that fear


Blog
Here's my thing about socialism: it's not something you strive for. But the problem is that the capitalist society we've been living in for so many years is crumbling around us. How else can we respond to the fact that companies take advantage of their customers when they are regulated other that.... regulation?

I've always been a proponent of capitalism, but capitalism with a social conscience with consumer education is the only kind of capitalism that will survive in the long run. We've fostered a generation of companies who work only for their shareholders, and of course everyone else ends up screwed.

I don't like the idea of common property any more than anyone else. But if the only way to convince individuals to act responsibly towards their fellow citizens is to remove the opportunity to own over a certain percentage of the wealth, what else are we to do?

Perhaps that's the answer: rather than making everything common property, simply limit what percentage of wealth one individial or company can own. Conservatives wouldn't ever go for it because it would mean regulation, but at least we wouldn't have the mess we're in now.
"And politically correct is the worst term, not just because it’s dismissive, but because it narrows down the whole social justice spectrum to this idea that it’s about being polite instead of about dismantling the oppressive social structure of power.
Fun Fact: When you actively avoid being “PC,” you’re not being forward-thinking or unique. You’re buying into systems of oppression that have existed since before you were even born, and you’re keeping those systems in place."
Stolen.

Trending Topics


Posting 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com