The Stimulus Package

[Gildan]

lol Gil nops nops it isn't a joke at all, say you wouldn't happen to have the president's postal address so I can just directly ask him for my car installments and fuel to be paid?

 

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Willful ignorance makes legitimate discourse rather difficult unfortunately.  There are many many reasons to not like the stimulus bill, at least try and pick a real one in the future.

[Arhen]

well you know encouraging good for nothings with no ambition to stay that way all the while penalizing the hard workers to me seems to be a legitimate reason not to like the stimulus package.. well one of the reasons anyways..

and is that the actual true address of the White House? cool thank you!! ok everyone just lemme know what car you want and I'll just compile a list for the president so we can just send him one letter with all the info in it, simpler that way.

[Redwohc]

I am not very familiar with everything in the stimulus plan.  I haven't had the time or the stomach to read it.  I do hear a lot about what's in it from the news media.  I believe about 10% of 20% of what they say.  There are parts of the plan that I like.  I think keeping cops and emergancy workers employed is a good thing.  I think paying for some projects to be done just to give some people a job for the next year is bad.  I also think helping people who can't afford homes and shouldn't have taken a loan at 120% value is a bad thing, too.  But I'm grudgingly resigning myself to the fact that government spends money like a drunken sailor and there is little that I can do about it.

Gildan, the only part where I would partially disagree with you is the banks being to blame for the economy tanking.  They had a hand in it.  No question about that.  Many companies like AIG got involved in some trading that was outside of what their business was and they got out of control.  They should never have been given money.  But there was alos a lot of pressure on banks from government regulators to lend to people that those banks wouldn't normally lend to.  There was a lot of pressure on them to lend to lower income people and at debt/income ratios that didn't cover the loans.  What percentage of the mess was that?  I don't know.  No one else does either.  yes, a lot of mortgage companies got "creative" with their underwriting.  But Fannie and Freddie bought those loans, repackaged them and sold them off.  Now it's difficult to establish the true value of a lot of those assets.  The Fed also requires banks to write the value of their holdings down based on median sales pricing.  Banks with loans in good standing are often required to dump some assets that they otherwise would have held.  Now those loans are being shopped and no one is buying.  That's a lot of the reason why Bear Stearns went south in an incredibly short period of time.  Was there greed on the part of the banks?  Absolutely.  Does Congress own a large share of the blame.  Yep.  But you won't see them owning up to that.

Good point on Arcorn, though.  I see that hashed out every day in the media as a means to fanning the flames of discord over this stimulus package.  But I have never seen it reported as it actually happens.  Leave it to you and your usual excellent fact checking to provide it

Redwohc

[Erebethor]

I can see Gildan and Arhen are going to be at each others verbal throats before long  Not sure if this will be entertainig or worrying. As far as I see Gildan is in the right. Even ME, well known for making huge generalistions started wondering how anyone could make up an argument like that. Having been shown Moores bad side I now realise what a tool he is. I know I vowed not to bring him into an argument but I meant as in to use him to defend my point and believe and use his facts. Arhen you should meet up with him some time.
Ereb

[Gildan]

Ereb

Sometimes you just have to know when to not bother with a discussion with individuals, this is one of them with Arhen.

Redwohc

Yes, it was remiss of me to not mention all the idiocy implemented by government as well (sadly my anger is mostly aimed at the banks, since I firmly believe they will be getting more money from us very soon).  Thank you for bring up and outlining much of their culpability.  Policy and laws dating back to Clinton and expanded upon under Bush have not helped at all.  Derugulation, legislation, and encouraging home ownership for all was in hindsight not such a good idea.

Of course, we should never forget the third party at fault in all this either - the consumer.  Our greed in the matter is every bit to blame.  I think I told this story before, but I remember when I started shopping for my first home (which ended up a condo).  My personal comfort level was about a 250K mortgage.  But Countrywide (may they rot in hell), tried to convince me I could easily handle a 400-600K mortgage (this was my first real clue of something rotten as an aside).  It was hard to walk away from that, but I did knowing how stupid it would be for me in the long run.  Unfortunately a lot of consumers did not exhibit the self control (or knowledge) to do that.

[Redwohc]

Of course, we should never forget the third party at fault in all this either - the consumer.  Our greed in the matter is every bit to blame.  I think I told this story before, but I remember when I started shopping for my first home (which ended up a condo).  My personal comfort level was about a 250K mortgage.  But Countrywide (may they rot in hell), tried to convince me I could easily handle a 400-600K mortgage (this was my first real clue of something rotten as an aside).  It was hard to walk away from that, but I did knowing how stupid it would be for me in the long run.  Unfortunately a lot of consumers did not exhibit the self control (or knowledge) to do that.

Now THAT is a perfect example of how banks get out of hand.  They charge higher fees for more money borrowed.  I have no problem with them doing that if they would clue you in on it.  But they don't.  And it's not even in the fine print either.  It's not in there at all.  Now, the consumer has to have the restraint and the basic good sense to not borrow beyond their means.  No excuse for signing up for more than you can pay.  But banks push a loan price up to collect higher fees and then don't even feel responsible to disclose the terms.  I don't mind someone selling me something.  I just don't like getting suckered because they weren't honest.  Granted this is not a large part of the housing issue but it's certainly part of the F***up Stew.

Redwohc

[Kwee]

Gildan, the part of Title XII to which I'm referring is the 4 paragraphs under "Community Development Fund," particularly the two pragraphs beginning with,

"(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities. . . "   (italics added)

Much of the language of these two paragraphs goes into some details about how the money should be used.  My point is that groups - like ACORN - can and have used money like this in the past for purposes that can hardly be described as "stimulating the economy."  If Congress had wanted these $3.4 billion used for Community Development only, it could have been a LOT more specific as to its use.

As for what the UAW has already given up, I can't argue with that.  But giving up the jobs bank, where workers on long-term layoff basically collect almost all of their wages while not working, is not "giving up" much, in my opinion, as it struck me as outrageous that it was implemented in the first place.  That's just my opinion though, and I realize that fewer than 4,000 workers have actually benefitted from it.  The point Cramer was making is that it's going to take a lot more than that or the $4/hour cutback at the Mitsubishi plant for American automakers to be competitive.

[Erebethor]

DANG! I'm still making mistakes on these threads (what Gildan told me off for). These things are like a minefield!
Ereb

[Eruannonen]

I know I have almost never posted anywhere, and the bill has (unfortunately) passed, but I just though I'd throw out my opinion.

What if the whole idea behind this bill is to further the nationalization of America? There are several sections within the bill that talk about healthcare, which, incidentally, show that the Dems were blatantly lying about how much they cared for the elderly. This bill is gonna keep medical treatment from even reaching the elderly. NICE! My granddad is is his 70's, I guess he can't produce enough of a return for treatment, right?

Also, when (not if) the economy crashes worse than a MMO server overload, the government will have a means to say "The banks obviously do not know how to do things, so let us take over for you!". BAM! We've just nationalized our healthcare AND our banking system just by electing this guy! The signs that the economy is gonna flop on us are everywhere. Stock trading, the price of gold (Glenn Beck was right after all! Gee!), and the increase in global warming. It's all those hotheads in washington, they're worse than cow farts now. Ok, that last part was a joke, so plz don't start a Global warming thread. If you do, send some of it my way, we're freezing where I am!

p.s.- I get on intermittently, so I'll probably check this thread one a month, if I'm lucky lol. So message me w/ questions that need answering (yes, I play LOTRO)