Despite a bipartisan effort...

@Foxfyre,

I'm going to admit I supported that bank bailout bill, Foxfyre. Thing is, though, I only thought I knew what a bank was. I have since been educated. In any case, I somehow assumed (incorrectly) that the idea was to buy "troubled assets" to clear them from the lenders' books, and in the expectation that many of the debts would eventually be collected. I did see a provision for taking equity positions. I didn't like that at all, but it was kind of down played.

Now, I see that the Ford company is competing with the Bank of General Motors. Man, that government can be hard to compete with! Zero percent financing on the standard Belchfire Eight.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

I'll tell you what I think of some of the mortgage schemes. The one announced by McCain in the second presidential debate was almost enough to cause me to abstain from voting for president. The only reason I did vote on that race was the prospect of the presidency and both houses of congress being of the same party. You are simply not going to keep me hopping around trying to defend anything that says "Republican".

I know. Just wanted to point out that it's a bipartisan thing.

Quote:

Infrastructure developement sounds fine, depending on what it is. An eight lane highway between East Deliverance and Rottencrotch will dump a bunch of money. If that's where the money ends up, our infrastructure is in better shape than I had ever thought.

Also true. But our recent Minnesota bridge collapse kind of highlights the fact that there are plenty of projects which are necessary and will have real effects. Strengthening a bridge isn't a sexy project but we sure need it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Agree. And if additional bridges are needed for the volumn of traffic, this is a heck of a good time to build them. Our economy would be dead without servicable highways and rail roads.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

I'm going to admit I supported that bank bailout bill, Foxfyre. Thing is, though, I only thought I knew what a bank was. I have since been educated. In any case, I somehow assumed (incorrectly) that the idea was to buy "troubled assets" to clear them from the lenders' books, and in the expectation that many of the debts would eventually be collected. I did see a provision for taking equity positions. I didn't like that at all, but it was kind of down played.

Now, I see that the Ford company is competing with the Bank of General Motors. Man, that government can be hard to compete with! Zero percent financing on the standard Belchfire Eight.

I would have supported the government backing the toxic loans IF we had assurance that policies to prevent more of them were going into effect immediately to prevent any more....and IF they had assured us that the government would work with the homeowners to work out a way for the loans to be repaid but repay the loans they must....and IF they had assured us that competent watchdogs would oversee the entire process....and IF they had ordered the banks to unfreeze credit once they had the toxic loans underwritten. They didn't do any of that. They simply handed over blank checks with no strings attached and little or no oversight.

As to the automakers, that should have been handled as it was with Chrysler in the 1970's. Each presents a solid business plan to experts who would approve it--the government removes as many restrictions as possible on what the auto makers have to build....and the auto makers get busy making good cars and trucks that people want so that they can repay their loans.

That isn't the way it was done either.

So we still have an overregulated auto industry, no relief for corporate entitlements that are eating away at their survival, and no plan for anybody to not accumulate more red ink.

The only group that remains untouched is ACORN and, according to the last package deal I read, are receiving billions and billions of our money to help people who don't qualify for loans to get them.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Agree. And if additional bridges are needed for the volumn of traffic, this is a heck of a good time to build them. Our economy would be dead without servicable highways and rail roads.

OK, so what is the difference between a valuable project and pork? The Bridge to Nowhere is pork, the Bridge to Somewhere is not. Both stimulate the local economy, employ locals, use local materials, fill local restaurants with construction workers, etc. The BTS will help the economy long term by filling a real need while the BTN will not. The hard part is that many projects fall between these extremes. The definition of pork is often how many and which congressional districts are involved. If it's in my district, it is a project that fills a vital need and will provide jobs and growth for years to come. If it is in your district, it's pork. As I see it, the entire stimulus package is pork... and absolutely essential in jump starting the economy.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The comment about Acorn receiving billions and billions to help people who don't qualify for loans to get them is extremely important. Such loans, made to people with no money down and no real job( many times lenders never asked) were made uner pressure from the Clinton administration so that more minorities could own homes.

There is extensive documentation of this fact.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

This is a spending bill. Money spent on anything in America has a stimulus effect.

Then how do you rationalize giving money to Filipino vets of WW2 as having any type of stimulus on tha US economy?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
This is a spending bill. Money spent on anything in America has a stimulus effect.

Then how do you rationalize giving money to Filipino vets of WW2 as having any type of stimulus on tha US economy?

Uh, I don't? I wouldn't have included that in a bill I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

It is a pitifully small amount, brings justice, and is not even worth a mention.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Shut up with your "small amount" BS.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Shut up with your "small amount" BS.

Now, now. He's allowed to hold an opinion even if you don't agree with it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ndAyv4BjPbk/SZA45d7VEuI/AAAAAAAAAxc/Tkxp_qHJXlg/s400/Picture+12.png

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Can I get the pitifully small amount of my mortgage payoff into this?

How about the even more pitifully small amount of a new car for me?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Funny, you say that like I would really take direction from you. The fact of the matter is that, following the dictates of Lushbaugh, you and the other Reps focus on miniscule aspects of the stimulus bill in an effort to sink it. You have no shame.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Funny, you say that like I would really take direction from you. The fact of the matter is that, following the dictates of Lushbaugh, you and the other Reps focus on miniscule aspects of the stimulus bill in an effort to sink it. You have no shame.

Perhaps you meant to respond to Maporsche.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Damn Cyclo,
You have now been called a repub AND a conservative.
Welcome to the dark side.

As for the money to Filipino vets, that does nothing to stimulate or help our economy, and I thought that was the whole reason for the bill.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I suppose it's a fundamental difference in beliefs, engineer. If your beliefs lean towards pure Keynesian economics, you may be right. Mine do not. Perhaps, if the federal government were operating in the black, we had a positive trade balance, and all that stuff, it might work. Under those conditions, even the Bush tax rebates might have had value. They didn't.

Well, suppose John Keynes were correct. You would still be wrong to build that bridge from Nowhere to Somewhere Else, if there were other bridges inadequate for the flow of traffic, or dams and bridges waiting to fail.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

You cannot mix me in the Limbaugh-ites, nor Republicans.

I voted for Obama and support many of his policies.

I take EXTREME offense that you would consider borrowing billions of dollars from MY future that I will have to pay back, as something "pitiful".

You need to stop it. This is serious business and borrowing money from future generations (mine) is THEFT.

And I've personally focused on the larger parts of the spending bill in an 'effort' to sink it. I've posted plenty of times how $500 tax rebate will not have any effect (it sure didn't when Bush paid out $600).

0 Replies

@nimh,

Nimh. The man from Holland and is now strictly from Hungar-y and is reflexively Anti-American, gives us a Gallup Poll.

I howver, went to Rasmussen and found that although Obama has been president less that an month, his approval is dropping rapidly-

NOTE

Obama Approval Index History
Date
Presidential Approval Index
Strongly Approve
Strongly Disapprove
Total Approve
Total Disapprove

02/09/2009
+14
38%
24%
60%
38%

02/08/2009
+11
36%
25%
59%
39%

02/07/2009
+14
37%
23%
60%
38%

02/06/2009
+17
38%
21%
61%
36%

02/05/2009
+19
39%
20%
62%
36%

02/04/2009
+18
39%
21%
62%
36%

02/03/2009
+15
37%
22%
61%
36%

02/02/2009
+17
41%
24%
60%
38%

02/01/2009
+21
44%
23%
63%
34%

01/31/2009
+23
45%
22%
63%
34%

01/30/2009
+21
43%
22%
63%
36%

01/29/2009
+22
42%
20%
62%
36%

01/28/2009
+22
42%
20%
62%
36%

01/27/2009
+23
42%
19%
62%
36%

01/26/2009
+21
41%
20%
60%
37%

01/25/2009
+22
42%
20%
60%
36%

01/24/2009
+26
44%
18%
61%
33%

01/23/2009
+29
45%
16%
62%
29%

01/22/2009
+30
44%
14%
64%
29%

01/21/2009
+28
44%
16%
65%
30%

Data Prior to 1/21/09 Represents Obama Approval Ratings as President-Elect

01/20/2009
+25
41%

*****************************************************************

While only 30% were in the Disapproval column when he was inaugurated, 38% are in the Disapproval column now. AND THIS IS ONLY AFTER ONE MONTH.

I predict that if there are any more major gaffes like the one in which Obama apoligized and said he screwed up( the horrendous vetting problem in which nominee after nominee was not properly vetted), that Disapproval rating will rise rapidly.

If the economy has not improved materially by 12/2009,the American people,most of whom know very little about Economics, will show their disapproval. The elections of 2010 are not far off. Campaigning will start in earnest in the beginning of 2010.

The Democrats had better pray that the porkie stimulus package will begin to work and soon.

2 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

I suppose it's a fundamental difference in beliefs, engineer. If your beliefs lean towards pure Keynesian economics, you may be right. Mine do not. Perhaps, if the federal government were operating in the black, we had a positive trade balance, and all that stuff, it might work. Under those conditions, even the Bush tax rebates might have had value. They didn't.

Well, suppose John Keynes were correct. You would still be wrong to build that bridge from Nowhere to Somewhere Else, if there were other bridges inadequate for the flow of traffic, or dams and bridges waiting to fail.

I think Keynes makes a lot of sense in that once you are in a panic situation and people are afraid to buy regardless of their financial situation, the economy is no longer self correcting. The rules of supply and demand don't work when the demand is artificially suppressed by fear. Like you pointed out, the Bush tax cuts only work in an up economy. When people are riding high and spending, if you give them more money, they will spend more. In a down economy, the rational choice is to hoard money not spend it.

I agree that it would be best if we were building the best projects based on some national, unbiased criteria, but that's not going to happen with a significant portion of the bill. The stimulus is going to be filled with a lot of projects, some with unquestionable merit, some with little merit and a lot in between. If you are anti-stimulus, you will be able to look at most of the bill and say it is "pork" and you'd be right if pork is defined as a project who's value is mostly local, but it is still stimulus. If the goal is to put people to work on something that is somewhat useful instead of having them watch their unemployment benefits run out, I say go for it.

A funny story from the WPA days that will no doubt enrage some, but I like to tell it anyway. One project in New Orleans was to build a hill. If you've ever been there, you may have noticed that New Orleans is completely flat. The elevation change, max to min, over the entire metropolitian area can't be more than 10 feet. The WPA work crews decided that the children of New Orleans needed a hill to play on, so the built up a hill near Audubon Park near the zoo. That is about as porky as you can get, but I remember that hill fondly because as an elementary student in the early 70's, we would go on field trips to the zoo and then go play on the hill. Several years ago, I took my children to New Orleans and we went to the zoo. The hill has been dramatically upgraded from the grass mound that my classmates and I rolled down. It has steps and play areas and a little flowing stream carved into it. And it was still covered in children playing on the only hill in New Orleans.

0 Replies

Despite a bipartisan effort...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know