http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/us...l?ref=business

It's amazing how quickly the Democrats point fingers. Almost as amazing as how quickly the Republicans point fingers, but in the case of this spending package, I have to agree with the Republicans. It is not a stimulus package it is a spending package.

Now, what would a stimulus package be?

How about giving every American a tax holiday for a year?

Or cutting taxes by the $940 or is it $960 Billion over the next four years?

Or better yet, make the tax cuts permanent.

Just make sure that they are focused on the middle class and working class. Though I really do like the idea of a tax holiday.

What the Democrats appear to be ignoring (which fails to surprise me) is that the idea is to CREATE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, not to INCREASE FUNDING FOR JOBS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

With out the Private Sector there is no public sector. Increasing spending in government programs is stupid, and does the opposite of a Stimulus. In essence what the Democrats are doing is using the need to stimulate the economy as an excuse to increase funding for their favorite pet projects.

What's really disgusting is the fact that none of those pin heads in Congress has yet to step forward, and say, "Instead of amending this growing monstrosity, lets break it into its components, and see what we can all agree on, and pass the legislation we can agree on."

They could start with

AMT Relief
Tax Cuts

and move on to

Infrastructure Spending

skipping funding for
the states (the states fucked up, let them fix their own damn problems, at least then they'll learn (got to let them grow up (or stop acting senile) some time))

the National Endowment of the Arts (how the hell is that going to create jobs?)

Family Planning (WTF does that have to do with creating JOBS?)

Hell, at this rate the bridge to nowhere was a better stimulus than the crap that the Democrats are putting in this bill, at least the Bridge to Nowhere created jobs in the private sector (temporarily.)

Something that the Democrats have obviously decided to ignore.

I, personally, would rather just get a tax free year.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

"Without the Private Sector there is no public sector."

That's exactly right, TBT. As you know, California has a budget shortage of 48 BILLION. The State Legislature is run by entrenched Marxist Democrats and their answer to the shortage is to raise taxes, fees and to increase regulations on the private sector. The government employee unions continually try to suck more out of the private sector as well. Pubic employees here in California have incredible retirement programs and super benefits. If these public employees know what's good for them, they had better start talking about lowering taxes and creating super benefits and incentives for businesses here, because businesses and their employees are leaving the state in droves. You'd think it would be obvious to these governmental looters that the money to fund their golden retirements comes from the private sector. Personally, I think they are way to greedy to wake up and smell the coffee ... until its too late.

On the federal bailout ... All this is, is a wish list compiled by leftists in an attempt to satiate their pent up demand for Marxist programs that here-to-fore, they couldn't get through. Even now, the only way they will get this crap through is to scare the hell out of the American people. Thanks to conservative talk radio and TV broadcasts, they won't get away with it. As this is being written, the switch boards at our congressmen and senator's offices are overloaded with their constituents screaming like crazy. American's are waking up to this scam of all scams ... the greatest train robbery since the Sundance Kid.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

n a TV interview last month, Vice President Joe Biden said the following:

Every economist, as I’ve said, from conservative to liberal, acknowledges that direct government spending on a direct program now is the best way to infuse economic growth and create jobs.

That statement is clearly false. As I have documented on this blog in recent weeks, skeptics about a spending stimulus include quite a few well-known economists, such as (in alphabetical order) Alberto Alesina, Robert Barro, Gary Becker, John Cochrane, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, Greg Mankiw, Kevin Murphy, Thomas Sargent, Harald Uhlig, and Luigi Zingales–and I am sure there many others as well. Regardless of whether one agrees with them on the merits of the case, it is hard to dispute that this list is pretty impressive, as judged by the standard objective criteria by which economists evaluate one another. If any university managed to hire all of them, it would immediately have a top ranked economics department.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...-the-stimulus/


Change we can believe in.

__________________
.Intense feeling too often obscures the truth.
Harry S. Truman

Personally I like the idea of forcing banks to drop all current primary residence mortgage interest rates to 3%.

Banks would still make money on the loans, it would give current home owners a little breathing room and would actually leave a little more money in the federal coffers in the form of lower tax deductions. It would cost the American taxpayer nothing and would offer some real help to people that are struggling. Even the people that can easily afford their mortgage would now find a little bit extra cash each month and they might be apt to spend it else where in the economy which is currently one of the real problems today. People not stimulating the economy by saving money is hurting us more than most people realize.

Giving banks money to loan when people have no jobs and no confidence in the economy to borrow is pointless. Giving tax breaks to first time home buyers only offers help to a very small segment of the population and even worse it may entice some people to take on a mortgage when they really can't afford it. All at the cost of the rest of us. The new car tax break is a TOTAL joke. Yeah lets encourage people to take on MORE debt.

The problem with that is it violates the contracts. Contracts that were signed between the banks and the people that took the mortgages. It is not just unfair to the banks, but also horribly unfair to those that took out mortgages before, that were not Interest-Only, Variable Rate, or No Documentation Loans.

It is unfair to any one that does not need help, or has too much self-respect to ask for it.

Besides, if it does anything like most government policies it will make the problem worse.

And that is Economics 99: Remedial Economics

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

Are you kidding? Do you really think I give a fuck about the fairness to banks? They were a large help getting us into this mess they should bear some of the brunt of fixing it. You're talking about companies that handed out bonuses EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LOSING MONEY. Yeah the banks wouldn't make as much money on the loans but 3% of something is way better than 0% of nothing.

Now how is it unfair to the consumer? I'm not saying you RAISE someone's rate to 3%, if they somehow (love to know how) have a rate lower than 3% let it stay where it is. I'd love to hear you explain how lowering someone's interest rate is unfair to them.

It's unfair to people who don't need it HOW exactly? It would give them extra money each month and hopefully they would put that extra cash back into the economy by spending it. Any consumer spending we could generate would help stimulate the economy.

As far as "people too proud to ask" I'm not asking them to ask. I'm saying we force the banks to make the change. All primary residence mortgages over 3% BAM...cut em to 3. Hell I'd go so far as to say convert any ARMs to fixed rates at 3% while they're at it. I seriously doubt the rate will ever go that low, do you?

The best is you suggesting that as a govt policy it has to make things worse. Get real. Do you think the govt is NOT going to do anything as it is now? Maybe you heard about this little thing they are considering doing called the stimulus package? Yeah no lets tell them to sit on their thumbs and spin and see what happens.

Prominent economists can't agree on what to do here but you're going to tell me about some shit you read in a book? You're in for a shock when you get into the real world.

BTW Lawrence Lindsey suggested we do this at 4% but you make the loan like a student loan where you still have to pay it back even if you walk away from your home. Then again what the fuck does he know he only got his A.B. magna cum-laude from Bowdoin College and his A.M. and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.

The problem with FORCING banks to lower the mortgage interest rates to 3% ... or anything below market rates, is that the banks will refuse to lend. Think of it like the minimum wage laws that FORCE employers to pay above market rates for labor. If minimum wage laws make sense, let's raise it to $40.00 an hour. If that makes sense, let's FORCE banks to lend at 1/2% interest. Same-o, same-o, no?

Forcing unnatural interest rates onto banks is like forcing unnatural wages onto employers. Its nothing more than a tax ... and you know the old saying ... "If you want less of something, tax it.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

hey? wasnt the guvment responsible for making the banks lend to people who couldnt afford to pay it back? the government is NOT THE SOLUTION THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

__________________
everything i print write or show on here is a complete and utter lie..i cant help myself i am a terminal liar..all of this shit is just fiction and made up for entertainment purposes ONLY..

I did not say force them to lower interest rates I said force them to give all CURRENT primary residence mortgage holders a reduction to 3%.

Min wage laws ALREADY force employers to pay above market value in some situations but it's not exactly unreasonable. $40/Hr would be unreasonable.

Banks helped create this mess and should bear some of the burden of cleaning it up. Why should it be the sole responsibility of the taxpayers as it is now? There needs to be some level of accountability and so far it's not happening. Banks are being rewarded for irresponsible business practices by being bailed out by taxpayers.

If people continue to default on home loans the fire sale by banks on foreclosed properties will crush property values. I've seen estimates as high as 20% decline in value in some areas as it is now. Wouldn't it be better for the banks if more people keep paying their loans at a lower interest rate than to take the losses they will incur by having to unload these properties in a seriously depressed market? No lets let the feds continue to buy off their toxic assets with taxpayer money.

BTW, for all you righty geniouses that belitle the stimulus package, In effect, stimulus means spending, duhhh. Tax cuts actually are lethargic in producing any real "STIMULUS", they basically only help those that need help the least. Tell me how a tax cut helps the unemployed. In this economic climate where the banks got billions and still won't loan money, do you actually think giving a tax cut to a millionaire or a company will promote jobs, get real. Spending on things that will create jobs, like infrastructure and giving the states money to keep from laying off thousands is more like it. Here in Nv. there is the spector of losing about 10,000 state jobs. Maybe they have it cushy, I wouldn't know as I spent my career in the private sector, but that alone would remove between 40 and 60 million bucks from Nv.s economy. I hate to think of how many and how much it would remove from Ca.s economy

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.