New Stimulus package deal struck

[JoeChalupa]

You see what can be done when partisanship is put aside and we work together? That is what I'm talking about!!
Why can't Barack Obama give praise to Reagan without being called out on it? Why is McCain criticized for working with Ted Kennedy?

Stimulus package deal struck (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/stimulus_package/?postversion=2008012410)

[xrayzebra]

Partisanship is a misnomer. Partisanship = compromise of ones
principles. Dimm-o-crap partisanship usually means give me
my way or the highway. And then they cry the Republicans wont
work with them.

We don't need partisanship. We need leadership. We have
none on either side of the aisle.

[JoeChalupa]

Partisanship is a misnomer. Partisanship = compromise of ones
principles. Dimm-o-crap partisanship usually means give me
my way or the highway. And then they cry the Repugnants wont
work with them.

We don't need partisanship. We need leadership. We have
none on either side of the aisle.

Even the best leader can't get things done when members of congress cannot work together. Repugnant partisanship usually means give me my way or the highway and then they cry that Democrats won't work with them.

Compromising does not always have to be viewed as you do. Compromising can get things done. Are you saying you've never compromised to get something done?

[JoeChalupa]

A true leader can get people with different ideas and views to work together. That to me is true leadership. That is why I feel Obama can get more things done than Hillary. Hell, you yourself can't stand her and the repugnants will not want to work with her. And that is what America is sick of.

[xrayzebra]

A true leader can get people with different ideas and views to work together. That to me is true leadership. That is why I feel Obama can get more things done than Hillary. Hell, you yourself can't stand her and the repugnants will not want to work with her. And that is what America is sick of.

Ronald Reagan was a leader, who got things done with
Congress, because he had the support of the people and
went directly to them to make Congress move.

Illegal immigration is a great example of the Prez and
Congress feeling the heat and doing what the people
wanted not what special interest groups wanted. Both
sides of the aisle and the prez got the message.

[JoeChalupa]

So you are saying Bush is a bad leader? You are seeing the light!!!

[xrayzebra]

So you are saying Bush is a bad leader? You are seeing the light!!!

Son I saw the light when he was a Governor. And we have
another one worst than him as Governor now. Mr. Perry.
A dimm-o-crap calling himself a Republican to get elected.

One of these days I may get to vote for someone, instead
of against someone.

[clambake]

Ronald Reagan was a leader, who got things done with
Congress, because he had the support of the people and
went directly to them to make Congress move.

Illegal immigration is a great example of the Prez and
Congress feeling the heat and doing what the people
wanted not what special interest groups wanted. Both
sides of the aisle and the prez got the message.
so, he got things done with Congress you say?

just moments ago, in another thread, you blamed Congress when Reagan was prez.

don't forget to take your pills

[Extra Stout]

Son I saw the light when he was a Governor. And we have
another one worst than him as Governor now. Mr. Perry.
A dimm-o-crap calling himself a Republican to get elected.

One of these days I may get to vote for someone, instead
of against someone.
Perry isn't so much a dimm-o-crap as he is a loyal and productive Cintra employee.

[Extra Stout]

Ronald Reagan was a leader, who got things done with
Congress, because he had the support of the people and
went directly to them to make Congress move.

Illegal immigration is a great example of the Prez and
Congress feeling the heat and doing what the people
wanted not what special interest groups wanted. Both
sides of the aisle and the prez got the message.
Reagan didn't mind compromising with Democrats, because he figured he was getting half of what he wanted right away, and would get the other half soon enough. He could do that because he was an effective leader, with both political capital and the acumen to use it.

Bush can't do that because he is wildly ineffective as a leader, has zero political capital left, and barely has enough acumen to tie his own shoes.

[SouthernFried]

Compromise? What compromise?

We got tax breaks. Conservatives support any tax break you can get...always have, always will. Demo's dont.

What compromise?

Conservatives are right...liberals are wrong. Libs have to compromise with conservatives to be right. The only time Conservatives compromise with libs, is when they are...wrong.

sig

[George Gervin's Afro]

You see what can be done when partisanship is put aside and we work together? That is what I'm talking about!!
Why can't Barack Obama give praise to Reagan without being called out on it? Why is McCain criticized for working with Ted Kennedy?

Stimulus package deal struck (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/stimulus_package/?postversion=2008012410)


It's because conservatives don't want to compromise on their principles. Unfortunately they pick their principles over their country's welfare (no pun inrtended).

[xrayzebra]

so, he got things done with Congress you say?

just moments ago, in another thread, you blamed Congress when Reagan was prez.

don't forget to take your pills

Read what I said, not what you thought I said. Okay?

[xrayzebra]

Reagan didn't mind compromising with Democrats, because he figured he was getting half of what he wanted right away, and would get the other half soon enough. He could do that because he was an effective leader, with both political capital and the acumen to use it.

Bush can't do that because he is wildly ineffective as a leader, has zero political capital left, and barely has enough acumen to tie his own shoes.

He has enough "acumen" to put it to the dimm-o-crap
Congress. They just failed to override his veto of
SCHIP. You may not have seen it, it was buried on
page, upteen, small two inch article, in this mornings
E-N. For outoftowners San Antonio Express News.
But he is not the leader we need and he failed to
even try on Domestic issues until this congress. Which
I hated. It affected how people felt on his foreign
issues/policy.

[GaryJohnston]

You see what can be done when partisanship is put aside and we work together? That is what I'm talking about!!
Why can't Barack Obama give praise to Reagan without being called out on it? Why is McCain criticized for working with Ted Kennedy?

Stimulus package deal struck (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/24/news/economy/stimulus_package/?postversion=2008012410)

Amen my brother!

[BradLohaus]

Perry isn't so much a dimm-o-crap as he is a loyal and productive Cintra employee.

:lol yeah he's a whore.

[xrayzebra]

:lol yeah he's a whore.

I say this with apprehension. Because it may cause you
to have the big one. But I agree!

[BradLohaus]

^Everyone I know can't stand Perry and Hillary; what's that tell us? :lol

[boutons_]

Can anybody find anyone not party to createing the pkg who seriously thinks this package is going to work as advertized?

What are the measurements for success? After all, this is the "MBA" Whitehouse, right?

Will it stop the reset of ARM rates in 2M homes in 08/09?

Will it fix the broken financial system? Will it increase regulation so the capitalists don't fuck us up again with more of the same "free market" shit?

[Extra Stout]

^Everyone I know can't stand Perry and Hillary; what's that tell us? :lol
That they both suck?

[MannyIsGod]

Can anybody find anyone not party to createing the pkg who seriously thinks this package is going to work as advertized?

Nope - putting more money out into an already bloated economy that needs a correction pretty fucking hard is only a fix in the terms of a drug addict.

[boutons_]

January 24, 2008

Next on the Worry List: Shaky Insurers of Bonds

By VIKAS BAJAJ and JENNY ANDERSON

Even as stocks ended five days of losses with a surprising recovery on Wednesday, officials began moving to defuse another potential time bomb in the markets: the weakened condition of two large insurance companies that have guaranteed buyers against losses on more than $1 trillion of bonds.

Regulators fear a possible chain of events in which the troubled bond insurers, MBIA and Ambac, might be unable to keep their promise to pay investors if borrowers default on their debt.

That could leave the buyers of the bonds — including many banks and pension funds — on the hook for untold billions of dollars in losses, shaking confidence in the financial system.

To avoid a possible crisis, insurance regulators met with representatives of about a dozen banks on Wednesday to discuss ways to shore up the insurers by injecting fresh capital, much as Wall Street firms have turned to outside investors recently after suffering steep losses related to subprime mortgages.

( just get some capital from the Chineses or Arabs! WTF is is the problem?)

While it is unclear what steps, if any, the banks and regulators may ultimately take, the talks focused on raising as much as $15 billion for the companies, according to several people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

The notion that the failure of even one big bond insurer might touch off a chain reaction of losses across the financial world has unnerved Wall Street and Washington. It was a factor in the Federal Reserve’s decision on Tuesday to calm investors by reducing interest rates by three-quarters of a point, to 3.5 percent.

News of Wednesday’s meeting helped rally stocks, which had been down as much as 3 percent but ended up about 2 percent. Shares of MBIA jumped by nearly a third and Ambac jumped 72 percent, although they both remain far below their levels before the extent of the mortgage debacle became known.

( man, I shudda bought low!! but I'm not an insider )

Traditionally, bond insurance has been a low-risk business. State and municipal bonds rarely defaulted, so the insurers paid out few claims for such debt. But in recent years the bond insurers increasingly have guaranteed debt related to subprime mortgages, a business that they thought was safe but has turned out to be risky.

Now, as many subprime borrowers are defaulting, insurers could be obligated to cover some of the losses on securities backed by these loans.

Eric R. Dinallo, the New York insurance superintendent who regulates MBIA, called Wall Street executives on Tuesday to set up the meeting at his office in Lower Manhattan. He led the session on Wednesday and suggested that the group move in as little as 48 hours to get a deal done ahead of any downgrading of the bond guarantors by credit ratings firms.

According to two people, Mr. Dinallo said he would talk with the bankers one on one and reconvene the group — which included executives from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch — on Thursday or Friday. Neither federal officials nor executives of the two insurers attended the meeting.

“Regulators are furiously trying to come up with a plan,” said Rob Haines, an analyst at CreditSights, a research firm, who was not at the meeting.

( I thought the Repugs fired all the regulators? WTF good is the "free market" good for, if we still need business regualtors and regulations? )

Mr. Dinallo could face resistance from banks that do not have significant exposure to the guarantors and thus have less incentive to put up money. It is also unclear how executives and shareholders of the companies would react to the plan and the prospect of ceding control.

Sean Dilweg, the commissioner of insurance in Wisconsin, which regulates Ambac, sat in on the meeting but said he would be working with Ambac directly. Mr. Dilweg said he met separately on Tuesday with executives at Ambac, which is based in New York but chartered in Wisconsin.

“Eric is looking at the overall issue, but I am pretty confident that we will work through Ambac’s specific issues,” Mr. Dilweg said in a telephone interview. “They are a stable and well-capitalized company but they have some choices to make.”

Other options open to the banks include providing lines of credit and other backup financing to the guarantors. A chief goal of any rescue would be to help the companies regain or keep triple-A credit ratings, which are seen as vital to their business.

Late last year, Mr. Dinallo encouraged Berkshire Hathaway, the company controlled by Warren E. Buffett, to enter the bond insurance business. At the time, Mr. Buffett said he did not want to invest in existing guarantors because of their financial problems, and he started his own firm instead.

Since then, the troubles have worsened. Last week, Fitch Ratings downgraded Ambac’s credit ratings to double-A, from triple-A. MBIA still has a triple-A rating from the three agencies; the others are Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service.

While $15 billion might seem like a large amount of money for banks to commit to bond guarantors at a time when many investors have lost faith in them, Mr. Haines said it would be smaller than the billions the banks might have to write down if the companies lost their top ratings or incurred major losses.

“It’s a calculated kind of risk,” he said.

A spokesman for Ambac did not return calls seeking comment. A spokeswoman for MBIA declined to comment.

Analysts say it is unclear how much money would be needed to capitalize the companies adequately. Ratings agencies have changed their requirements several times already as they update their assumptions of defaults and losses on mortgage securities.

“What is needed to do the job is to solidify the market perception of a triple-A rating,” said Sean Egan, founder of Egan-Jones Ratings, a firm that says the companies may need to raise as much as $30 billion.

( if we withdraw from Iraq now, that will save $200B. Will that help? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

A recent effort by some banks to help a smaller bond insurer, ACA Capital, has not gone smoothly. The banks have twice agreed to give the company, which was downgraded to triple-C from single-A, more time to come up with an acceptable plan.

State regulators are under pressure to help solve a problem that many critics say could have been avoided with closer supervision. The insurers’ problems are also spilling over into the municipal bond market, making it harder for cities, counties and states to raise money for projects.

On Wednesday, for instance, some short-term insured municipal bonds, which typically trade at a premium to other bonds, were trading at a discount of as much as 1.5 percentage points to similar uninsured bonds, said Michael S. Downing, an account manager at Thomson Financial.

The companies have defended their assumptions. They also note that losses on the bonds that they insure would have to rise substantially before they would have to pay claims, and even then they would make interest and principal payments over the life of the bond, not all at once.

MBIA has estimated that in the worst case, which it described as a one in 10,000 event, it expects to incur losses of $10 billion, a fraction of the $673 billion it has insured.

Still, losses of that magnitude could strain the company’s finances, and the difficulties continue to mount. On Wednesday, Moody’s said it was considering downgrading a company, Channel Re, that reinsures more than $40 billion of insurance contracts written by MBIA. If the reinsurer is downgraded, MBIA, which owns more than 17 percent of Channel, would have to acknowledge fresh losses.

“If you are a bond insurer or bank you can never really eliminate the risk that you originated in entirety, unless you sell it,” said Edward J. Grebeck, chief executive of Tempus Advisors.

Julie Creswell contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/business/24bonds.html?ei=5087&em=&en=fe8d6a491abd56a9&ex=1201323600&pagewanted=print

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

This rebate deal is going to do jack and shit to help our economy in the long run. But hey, now everyone in D.C. gets to say they put a little something in everyone's pockets in an election year.

Fucking stupid.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

This is why we should stop having kids. Because no matter who you are or where you're from, 99% of the kids born will be idiots who buy into this political bullshit or are oblivious to it and thus just as guilty.

[SouthernFried]

Anyone who says we shouldn't get more of our tax money back...is an idiot.

I don't care if you think it helps the economy or not...any rebate/tax cut/spending cut (yeah, right )...is a good thing.

Govt should stay out of trying to pump-up, slow-down, or interfere with the economy in any way. Cuz they have no fucking clue what they are doing. Tax cuts are always good...always. Even when idiots in DC think they are effecting the economy...it's still good.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yes they do have a clue what they are doing.

That is the misconception. They know exactly what they are doing. Politicians have short term, intermediate, and long term goals ans plans, some that supersede their individual terms as politicians.

By doing shit like this not only do they accomplish the short term goal of tricking fucking morons into thinking they're doign something great, but they are actually boosting their ultimate long term goal to hollow out america's economy.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

SouthernFried - I'll happily take my refund check, but this is the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.

At some point the correction is still going to have to happen. The credit bubble is going to burst. The idiots in D.C. are just trying to make sure it happens after the fall elections.

[DarkReign]

SouthernFried - I'll happily take my refund check, but this is the political equivalent of kicking the can down the road.

At some point the correction is still going to have to happen. The credit bubble is going to burst. The idiots in D.C. are just trying to make sure it happens after the fall elections.

We have a fucking winner.

I want my money back just as much as you, SF. Trust me, I do.

But not at the expense of worsening the already fragile economy.

Unless the federal government severely reduces its spending by any means necessary, its exactly as AHF said...passing the buck, in other words.

[SouthernFried]

First of all...a tax cut is NOT going to worsen the economy. Period. Any tax cut is good...even if it's so minor as to be irrelevant. I don't care if it's a political ploy or not.

And everyone is right. Spending is the problem, always has been. But, giving people a little of their money really doesn't affect that much. In fact, it may help...

The only way I've ever seen ANY government control spending, is when they don't have any. Giving them less is always a good idea in this regard. The problem, is the debt they are willing to accumulate to continue their out of control spending spree. Everyone's seen it in people's personal lives, it's the exact same thing in govt. You give these people more money, it doesn't matter...their credit limits just go up and up. You take money away from these people and, at some point, they finally have to DEAL with it.

IMHO, the best way to deal with people, or govt, who continually increase their debt...is not to keep giving them more money to make their minimum payments on the debt...but, to take money away so they finally cannot make those payments, and have to get their shit together and deal with their problem.

You don't reward bad behavior, you punish it.

Giving our govt more of our money just puts off the inevitable. Take away their cash flow, and they will have to deal with their debt and deficit spending...they wont be able to increase it anymore, they wont be able to meet the minimum payments on the debt.

Why I NEVER support any tax increase...and support EVERY tax decrease.

This has to be dealt with...and it's going to be horrible when we finally do. It always is, whether it's in your personal life, or our govt's.

When our govt finally deals with this problem...it will affect the economy.

For the better.

[DarkReign]

IMHO, the best way to deal with people, or govt, who continually increase their debt...is not to keep giving them more money to make their minimum payments on the debt...but, to take money away so they finally cannot make those payments, and have to get their shit together and deal with their problem.

You don't reward bad behavior, you punish it.

True statements for everyone not named The United States Government. They'll give your tax money back because all they do is phone the Fed and have them print more money to cover the shortfall in income.


Giving our govt more of our money just puts off the inevitable. Take away their cash flow, and they will have to deal with their debt and deficit spending...they wont be able to increase it anymore, they wont be able to meet the minimum payments on the debt.

Man, Im sorry, youre not getting it. The next administration, regardless of party, is going to do the....exact.....same...thing every government (in my lifetime) before them has...try and kick the can down the road.


Why I NEVER support any tax increase...and support EVERY tax decrease.

This has to be dealt with...and it's going to be horrible when we finally do. It always is, whether it's in your personal life, or our govt's.

When our govt finally deals with this problem...it will affect the economy.

For the better.

Wonderful. I agree completely. But the government will NEVER reduce its spending. Remember, we're fighting an ambiguous "War on Terror", the most expensive "War on (insert vague enemy here)" in America's dumbass history of "War on (ambiguous noun here)".

Sooooo, reducing taxes is not the answer. That only reduces the value of the dollar. Our politicians are flat-out refusing to address the real problem, their spending.

But, in the same breath, the lemmings and soccer moms of the world are worried about their bowling alleys being targets by Osama, and the protection of such "high yield" targets costs money.

Fucking idiots (not you SF).

[101A]

...

Fucking idiots Thanks for boiling it down for us.

With those two simple words, you have hit the nail on the head.

[xrayzebra]

T






Wonderful. I agree completely. But the government will NEVER reduce its spending. Remember, we're fighting an ambiguous "War on Terror", the most expensive "War on (insert vague enemy here)" in America's dumbass history of "War on (ambiguous noun here)".



But, in the same breath, the lemmings and soccer moms of the world are worried about their bowling alleys being targets by Osama, and the protection of such "high yield" targets costs money.

Fucking idiots (not you SF).
OG, DR is so profound. vague enemy. Hmmmm,
maybe if he was in one of the bowling alley's when the
vague enemy blew himself up along with the soccer
moms, He would know who that "vague" enemy was.

And he was understand a little more about those
idiots who worry about it. (not you SF)

[Extra Stout]

The only way I've ever seen ANY government control spending, is when they don't have any. Giving them less is always a good idea in this regard. The problem, is the debt they are willing to accumulate to continue their out of control spending spree. Everyone's seen it in people's personal lives, it's the exact same thing in govt. You give these people more money, it doesn't matter...their credit limits just go up and up. You take money away from these people and, at some point, they finally have to DEAL with it.

IMHO, the best way to deal with people, or govt, who continually increase their debt...is not to keep giving them more money to make their minimum payments on the debt...but, to take money away so they finally cannot make those payments, and have to get their shit together and deal with their problem.

You don't reward bad behavior, you punish it.

Giving our govt more of our money just puts off the inevitable. Take away their cash flow, and they will have to deal with their debt and deficit spending...they wont be able to increase it anymore, they wont be able to meet the minimum payments on the debt.
You say that so matter-of-factly, like it's so simple. Yes, the government eventually will suffer the consequences of its spendthrift ways. The problem is that every citizen will suffer the consequences as well. Once the government is unable to finance its debt, the dollar becomes about as valuable as Monopoly money, and our economy collapses. This will happen just as soon as foreign powers like China believe their economies are strong enough to absorb the disruption of a "decoupling" from America. As long as you buy gold bars --and an arsenal to defend them-- with the proceeds of your rebate now, I guess you'll be all right.

The political elites in power whenever this goes down probably will pay the price with their lives at the hands of a revolutionary mob. When economic collapses happen in major world powers like Russia or Germany, as opposed to less-powerful places like Argentina or Southeast Asia, it changes the course of history, usually in a bad way (we narrowly missed our own communist or fascist revolution in the 1930's). What emerges from the collapse more likely will be an America goose-steppin' for Jesus than one which restores Jeffersonian ideals of democracy. When taken in those terms, I guess it makes sense for politicians to kick the can down the road as far and as long as they can.

[DarkReign]

OG, DR is so profound. vague enemy. Hmmmm,
maybe if he was in one of the bowling alley's when the
vague enemy blew himself up along with the soccer
moms, He would know who that "vague" enemy was.

And he was understand a little more about those
idiots who worry about it. (not you SF)

If you cant make the conection between "soccer moms fearing terrorism at their local bowling alley" and the fucking REAL world, then please, dont eneter the discussion trying to speak for SF.

[DarkReign]

In regards to ES's post, dystopian governments are born from collectivism.

Collectively, the American people are going to eventually be put over a barrel. Thats why its funny to me to hear about people investing in the future thru the market. Those stocks arent going to be worth a bucket of piss in 20 years because the USD isnt going to be worth a bucket of piss barring MAJOR, revolutionary government decrease in size and spending (<--- that was a qualifier, govt reduces one or both, you investors are still smart. But then again, Im not of the trusting nature to any flag).

[xrayzebra]

If you cant make the conection between "soccer moms fearing terrorism at their local bowling alley" and the fucking REAL world, then please, dont eneter the discussion trying to speak for SF.

Obviously it is you who has a hard time understanding
the "Real World". Not I. You and your stupid vague
enemy crap.

[Extra Stout]

In regards to ES's post, dystopian governments are born from collectivism.

Collectively, the American people are going to eventually be put over a barrel. Thats why its funny to me to hear about people investing in the future thru the market. Those stocks arent going to be worth a bucket of piss in 20 years because the USD isnt going to be worth a bucket of piss barring MAJOR, revolutionary government decrease in size and spending (<--- that was a qualifier, govt reduces one or both, you investors are still smart. But then again, Im not of the trusting nature to any flag).
What about my foreign stocks which will be worth $5,000,000,000,000,000,000 by then?

[DarkReign]

What about my foreign stocks which will be worth $5,000,000,000,000,000,000 by then?

What, no blue text?

[Extra Stout]

What, no blue text?
I figure $5 quintillion will make a decent nest egg in a world where a cup of coffee costs $10 trillion.

[DarkReign]

Obviously it is you who has a hard time understanding
the "Real World". Not I. You and your stupid vague
enemy crap.

Oh...got it. I forget sometimes.

Terrortopia is a country that we can just invade and kick ass. Its denizens go by "terrorists" and dislike the perversion of their nationality as "terrists".

Shit, when do we invade? I mean, they were responsible for 9/11 (queue Guliani) and all the numerous attacks on US sovereignty since.

Shit, just the other day I heard they were planning an offensive, so I called Homeland Security and told them to put us all on "Orange Alert".

So keep your eyes out from the comforts of your bunker, you spinless, mindless Lemming.

[DarkReign]

I figure $5 quintillion will make a decent nest egg in a world where a cup of coffee costs $10 trillion.

You did not just go thru the pain of counting the zeros in your random number just to stay accurate, you perfectionist quintiliionaire.

[Extra Stout]

Oh...got it. I forget sometimes.

Terrortopia is a country that we can just invade and kick ass. Its denizens go by "terrorists" and dislike the perversion of their nationality as "terrists".

Shit, when do we invade? I mean, they were responsible for 9/11 (queue Guliani) and all the numerous attacks on US sovereignty since.

Shit, just the other day I heard they were planning an offensive, so I called Homeland Security and told them to put us all on "Orange Alert".

So keep your eyes out from the comforts of your bunker, you spinless, mindless Lemming.
One of 91ul1ani's former staffers explained what to do. Just bomb the crap of of every Muslim country. He explained that this is because really all Muslims are terrorists, so it's OK to kill as many as you can. It's not necessary to kill all of them, however, because after the first 800 million or so, those that are left hiding in the rubble of what used to be their countries will be too broken to fight.

Worried about domestic terror as a result? Don't be. Under a 91ul1ani Presidency, Muslims will be easy to spot on account of the green crescents they will have to sew on their outer clothing. If they raise too much of a stink after that, they can be used for fuel in order to wean ourselves off foreign oil.

[Wild Cobra]

Why I NEVER support any tax increase...and support EVERY tax decrease.

Well, I don't go to those extremes. In general, I agree. However, the government does need some money to operate with. If you look at it from the tax rate that is optimum for government revenue, which the smart politicians do... the problem is determining what that point is. I tend to believe it is between 10% to 15%. That's an arbitrary educated guess.

Sure, I would like to pay 0% like 47% of the people do. That's not realistic. I would also like to see them pay their far share. If we aren't going to change to a system like "The Fair Tax" then I would like to see some minimum tax at all income.

[Nbadan]

Sure, I would like to pay 0% like 47% of the people do. That's not realistic. I would also like to see them pay their far share. If we aren't going to change to a system like "The Fair Tax" then I would like to see some minimum tax at all income.

So instead of robbing Peter to give to Paul, you want to rob Paul to give to Peter?

"Stimulus" = "swindle"
Bush administration again caters to big business
By The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/24/2008 09:29:18 PM MST


"Stimulus." You've probably heard that nebulous, scientific-sounding word this week. Every politician suddenly wants economic "stimulus," and wants you to think this "stimulus" is unequivocally good.

But here's the question: Why are we talking about "stimulus" only now? After all, most people have been hurting for quite awhile.

Paychecks have been stagnating, foreclosures have become commonplace, health-care premiums continue double-digit increases — and up until recently, conservatives greeted such hardships with saccharine fantasy.

Following government reports showing a surge in income inequality, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson last year gushed that the economy is "as strong as I have seen it in any time." In the summer, as the housing crisis exploded, President Bush said the economy was "thriving." And with word that there are now 195,000 homeless veterans nationwide, Bill O'Reilly insisted on Fox News that, really, "There's not many [homeless veterans] out there." Message: Nothing to see here. The economy is fabulous. Move along.

Lately, though, the rhetoric has switched. Paulson now says there is an "urgent need" for action, and President Bush is demanding a "stimulus" package from Congress. And that gets us back to the critical question: Why the sudden shift?

Because the group demanding help has changed. Before, it was just commoners complaining — regular homeowners, wage-earners, troops coming home from Iraq, you know, the 99 percent of us who can't afford the $1,000-a-plate political fundraisers.

But now Wall Street is panicking. In the last month, the financial industry's profit margins dropped, thanks to mortgage defaults brought on by irresponsible lending. And when the corporate executives who underwrite campaigns start whining, politicians develop "stimulus" schemes using the blight of layoffs, foreclosures and wage cuts to justify tax cuts for those doing the laying off, foreclosing and wage cutting.

Specifically, most GOP presidential candidates are demanding corporate tax cuts as the "stimulus" to improve American competitiveness, ignoring a recent Treasury Department report noting that the U.S. already has among the lowest effective corporate tax rates in the developed world. Republicans like John McCain, fresh off a Merrill Lynch fundraiser, say we need not expand unemployment benefits and food stamps to help workers and give the economy a reliable Keynesian boost. No, they say we must hand over more cash to the same financial industry that just gave its executives $39 billion worth of year-end bonuses.

Leading figures of both parties seem eager to help limit the debate over "stimulus" and make the final package a corporate goodie bag.

According to The Washington Post, Montana Democratic Sen. Max Baucus asked economists affiliated with The Hamilton Project — a Citigroup-backed think tank — to testify to Congress at its initial hearings on a stimulus package. Labor economists, by contrast, were not invited.

You might think Citigroup's central role in creating the current financial crisis would disqualify it from influencing legislation addressing that crisis. But remember, Citigroup gives lavishly to Democratic politicians and pays Democratic financier Bob Rubin roughly $10 million a year as a top executive.

Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats appear poised to support a package stripped of increases in safety-net programs and comprised largely of business tax cuts. This, even though experts agree the former would have an immediate economic impact and the latter will take at least six months to hit. As usual, we are told to wait patiently as moneyed interests claim their latest gift from Washington.

President Bush is undoubtedly pleased. He said he wanted "stimulus" built primarily on tax cuts and no new public investment — more proof of his desire to win the Most Out of Touch President title from Herbert Hoover.

Let's be clear: There's nothing inherently bad about Washington interacting with Big Business, and nothing wrong with "stimulus" as a concept. But as this recession intensifies, there's a big problem with politicians catering exclusively to Big Business and an even bigger problem with converting "stimulus" into yet another code word for "swindle."

Denver political analyst David Sirota (www.credoaction.com/sirota) is author of "The Uprising," to be published in June.

[SouthernFried]

DAN...just have those people you quote come here if you can't contribute anything to the discussion yourself.

thanks

[DarkReign]

DAN...just have those people you quote come here if you can't contribute anything to the discussion yourself.

thanks

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

So instead of robbing Peter to give to Paul, you want to rob Paul to give to Peter?

Not at all. I just want everyone to have a stake in government expenditures so they have a reason not to ask for more government programs.

Notice it's people who don't pay taxes that want more and more from the government! I believe in an equal burden of taxes, by ones ability to pay.

As for the quoted article:

Dan, I don't know how you solve problems, but as a technician, I've learned to go to the root problems. Not the symptoms. The article only lists symptoms.

What useless tripe you quoted.

Foreclosures: Stupid people who don't know how to budget.

Medical Bills: In serious need of tort reforms and deregulation of the industry.

etc.
etc.
etc.

Wages are climbing at a proper pace for the conditions we have, but don't keep up with expenses. Tough luck. Fix the root problems. Not addressing the proper problems will not fix a damn thing.

Slow wages: Supply and demand of the work force. Kick the illegals out!

As for homeless vets? What are the percentages? I once heard the numbers. Wish I remembered. I do remember the percentage of homeless vets was far less than homeless that are not vets!

Meaningful numbers please with proper benchmarks. Not just something that sounds good for the consumption of you'all lemmings.

[spurster]

This rebate is not our money. It's an addition to the decifit. Our money is long gone into 100 years in Iraq. BushCo and the Congresscritters are just scrambling so they can say they did something the upcoming recession.