$810 billion Dollar bailout passes?

[OneShotKi11]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/financial_meltdown

I could have swore we just voted against this $700 billion dollar bailout.
I like a fool thought it was because our representatives were doing something for the people, but oh was i wrong.

Can i say "Porks around the house"?

A whole $110 billion to grease off these greedy ****s!

[Quad4_72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/financial_meltdown

I could have swore we just voted against this $700 billion dollar bailout.
I like a fool thought it was because our representatives were doing something for the people, but oh was i wrong.

Can i say "Porks around the house"?

A whole $110 billion to grease off these greedy ****s!

How much do you know about economics? Do you know the purpose of the bailout and the long term effects if we just let banks fail?

[HereticHulk]

delete

[HereticHulk]

How much do you know about economics? Do you know the purpose of the bailout and the long term effects if we just let banks fail?

No. Why don't you tell us?

Don't forget wooden arrows and NASCAR!


u65V6ATo4rM

[Oliver]

No. Why don't you tell us?

Don't forget wooden arrows and NASCAR!


u65V6ATo4rM


Wooden Arrows Manufacturer??? :D

"Heck of a [lobbyist]-job, Brownie", correct?

[geni]

How much do you know about economics? Do you know the purpose of the bailout and the long term effects if we just let banks fail?

Beyond the general idea no one is really sure what effect it will have. It would have been cheaper if they hadn't had to start buying votes.

[trvlr2]

Pork? What Pork?....I need my wooden arrows. I need my rum. I need my roundy-round. I need those wide open spaces where all those trees were; you know, the ones cut down to print the additional 3 hundred pages of absolutely necessary items.
No man's life or property are safe while the congress is in session.
(apology:SC)
No pork here. Everyone just move along.
I am so proud to be an *American*.
Sometimes.
Not now.

[OneShotKi11]

How much do you know about economics? Do you know the purpose of the bailout and the long term effects if we just let banks fail?

Im glad everyone else got the point of my thread. I wasnt really here to debate the legitimacy of the bailout plan, even though i think it will be more of a negative on our economy.
I was more importantly trying to discuss the greed of our representatives. It was less then 2 weeks ago we voted against this exact same plan. Yet with the addition of $110,000,000,000 to the plan, suddenly it was good to go.

What made the exact same people who voted against the exact same plan change their mind in a week?
I can tell you...
That extra $110 billion spent buying off their votes.
This isnt even a "NUTTY TWOOFER" conspiracy, its a known obvious truth and it makes me sick to my stomach.

I just posted the topic to see if others were as perplexed and disgusted as me!
The first vote that declined this package gave me faith in our system again. I dont know if it was the right decision because the outcome for either side is still debatable. I atleast truly believed with them totally declining it the first time right or wrong, they made me believe they did it in the Americans peoples best interest. Now i realize it was only turned down because enough people werent getting a big enough slice of the pie!

[Quad4_72]

Im glad everyone else got the point of my thread. I wasnt really here to debate the legitimacy of the bailout plan, even though i think it will be more of a negative on our economy.
I was more importantly trying to discuss the greed of our representatives. It was less then 2 weeks ago we voted against this exact same plan. Yet with the addition of $110,000,000,000 to the plan, suddenly it was good to go.

What made the exact same people who voted against the exact same plan change their mind in a week?
I can tell you...
That extra $110 billion spent buying off their votes.
This isnt even a "NUTTY TWOOFER" conspiracy, its a known obvious truth and it makes me sick to my stomach.

I just posted the topic to see if others were as perplexed and disgusted as me!
The first vote that declined this package gave me faith in our system again. I dont know if it was the right decision because the outcome for either side is still debatable. I atleast truly believed with them totally declining it the first time right or wrong, they made me believe they did it in the Americans peoples best interest. Now i realize it was only turned down because enough people werent getting a big enough slice of the pie!

In the article it says this :

On Wednesday, the Senate, shortly before it recessed for the election, stepped in, voting 74-25 for a package that linked the rescue bill to a giant bill extending popular tax breaks such as the research-and-development tax credit, providing incentives for renewable energy resources and giving tax relief to disaster victims. That bill, costing an additional $110 billion, included a measure to give benefits parity to people with mental health problems. The Senate also added the boost in the ceiling for bank deposits.

I am unsure of your point. Who are you proposing is taking this "slice of the pie" that you do not approve of?

[The Painter]

I wish it was ONLY 810 Billion.POSSIBLE TOTAL $1.8 trillion+ How does a bill that is touted as the most important piece of legislation in our lifetime turn into the biggest boondoggle of our time? How does the bill go from 3 pages long, to 442 pages long, in less than one week? It's a Christmas tree, everyone hangs something on it.

"We will not Christmas-tree this bill," Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat promised a few days ago. "The times are too urgent. Everyone has their own desires and needs. It's going to have to wait."

What happened Chuckie? It's too important to pork it up. Legislators are honorable people, right?? Sen. Chuckie severely underestimated the complete lack of morals and the what's in it for me attitude of our governors.

Bailout type Cost to taxpayers (Source: Reuters)
Financial bailout package approved this week up to or more than $700 billion
Bear Stearns financing $29 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization $200 billion
AIG loan and nationalization $85 billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill $300 billion
Mortgage community grants $4 billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments $87 billion
Loans to banks via Fed's Term Auction Facility $200 billion+
Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund $50 billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $144 billion
POSSIBLE TOTAL $1.8 trillion+
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PER U.S. CENSUS 105,480,101
POSSIBLE COST PER HOUSEHOLD $17,064+

It was nice to see that Speaker Pelosi took the time to get her own little piece of Pork attached to the bill.;

That includes, as the New York Post pointed out, millions in tax breaks and related pork for kids' wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum producers, auto race tracks, and corporations operating in American Samoa. (The likely explanation for the latter: StarKist has a large tuna-canning operation in American Samoa. And StarKist's parent company happens to be located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)

I am disgusted by the lot of them. Both parties. Vote the incumbents out . All of them.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10057618-38.html?tag=nl.e433

[Nyarlathotep]

You see, the previous bail-out bill was flawed. Apparently it had FAR to little pork in it. The additional pork was neccessary for this one to suceed.

Remember the Politicians Creed "If you are going to dig into the wallets of the tax payers, dig as deeply as you can"

[kallsop]

Bush ballooned the budget, and the democrats never dislike a spending increase unless it benefits the US military. Corruptocrats such as Barney Frank and "I got my Countrywide VIP loan" Chris Dodd blocked efforts to head off the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

Now where is "no earmarks" McCain in all of this? Actively urging the passage of the pork loaded bailout.

McCain just lost the election on this issue. When the choice is between two liberals, the democrats win. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Dymanic]

Im glad everyone else got the point of my thread. I wasnt really here to debate the legitimacy of the bailout plan, even though i think it will be more of a negative on our economy.
I was more importantly trying to discuss the greed of our representatives. It was less then 2 weeks ago we voted against this exact same plan. Yet with the addition of $110,000,000,000 to the plan, suddenly it was good to go.
Tell ya what. I'll support you on this if you'll back me up on, say, my long-standing position that flu shots are safe and effective.

See how a thing like that could work?



And I just have to say something about this wooden arrow business. I haven't looked into all of the things that are being pointed to as "pork", but this particular one piqued my curiosity, so I checked it out. Just as I suspected, it makes pretty good sense if you look at it. The manufacture of wooden arrows is, apparently, subject to an excise tax. Most things, you don't get taxed just for making them, but rather on the profit you earn as a result. The manufacture of certain things, however, is presumed to impose some cost on society or whatever; and this is the justification for treating them differently. It seems that wooden arrows are among them, for some reason. Some legislators from Oregon felt that this should not apply to arrows made as toys for children (maybe it's that they're usually tipped with rubber suction cups, hence there is less danger of someone getting an eye put out). The way it's being presented makes it sound like the government is subsidizing the manufacture of wooden arrows.

It's not something I'm likely to lose much sleep over one way or the other, but it serves to illustrate how easy it is to influence the opinions of those who don't like dealing with details. The legislators from Oregon saw an opportunity to get something they wanted, and they took it. For good or ill, that's the way our system works.

[Crowlogic]

Pork is high in protein and leaner than beef.

[1337m4n]

But, is it kosher?

[geni]

How does the bill go from 3 pages long, to 442 pages long, in less than one week?

Normaly by getting the EU to rewrite it. The EU wouldn't have to add any extra spending to the bill to manage that mind.

[Beerina]

I wish it was ONLY 810 Billion. How does a bill that is touted as the most important piece of legislation in our lifetime turn into the biggest boondoggle of our time?


My theory is politicians are power-hungry bastards, and any political arguments they make are coincidental, at best, to the truth of reality.

It's a much better predictor of behavior than siding up with "the left" or "the right". And, like psychic and televangelist frauds, they just want the money.

I'm willing to accept other theories that more accurately predict behavior.

[roger]

What made the exact same people who voted against the exact same plan change their mind in a week?
I can tell you...
That extra $110 billion spent buying off their votes.
Did you notice the market crash after the first vote failed? Did you hear Warren Buffett calling this a financial "Pearl harbor"? I think I might have read something like that in the news....probably I just imagined it.

[Policenaut]

The bill went from 3 pages initially, to over 100 when it first failed, to over 400 passed. I can imagine them scrambling to find every piece of pork on their desk to shove into the bill for the second go around. If the most important thing for this bill passing was upping the FDIC from 100k to 250k how many pages did that take up? 1/3 of a page?

[MIKILLINI]

Well, it seems the political whores continue to show who they really care about: Themselves.
Meanwhile, the only ones getting through to members of Congress are Wall Street lobbyists, their pockets stuffed with campaign cash.

The claim that the bottom will fall out of the economy and that the country will be plunged into a depression if the bill didn't pass immediately is nonsense. The Great Depression took years to develop after the 1929 stock market crash.

The current market could collapse, and there'd be plenty of time to act to revive the national economy. Meanwhile, the credit crisis, which is serious, has been underway for months and months. It is not something that came up last week and needs to be resolved tomorrow (as if that were possible by the mere passing of a give-away bill).

There was plenty of time to hold the kind of hearings that would have let members of Congress, and the American public, learn about the causes of the crisis, of its impacts, and about what the various strategies available that might most effectively address it.

So even though more information and discussion was needed for assessing all the variables, the bailout was passed quickly and Congress still managed to add pork. How pathetic.

[The Painter]

Did you notice the market crash after the first vote failed? Did you hear Warren Buffett calling this a financial "Pearl harbor"? I think I might have read something like that in the news....probably I just imagined it.

Well, according to this post the stock market should sky rocket today. I don't believe it will, but we'll see what happens.

[Francesca R]

Well, according to this post the stock market should sky rocket today. I don't believe it will, but we'll see what happens.Not yet . . . .

Government action fails to halt global sell-off (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8eafcd26-936f-11dd-9a63-0000779fd18c.html)

[ponderingturtle]

I am unsure of your point. Who are you proposing is taking this "slice of the pie" that you do not approve of?

Look if people can't afford their diseases they should never have chosen to get them now should they?

[roger]

Well, according to this post the stock market should sky rocket today. I don't believe it will, but we'll see what happens.You are dishonest. I said no such thing.

[OneShotKi11]

You are dishonest. I said no such thing.

You most certainly did! Your assertion that the market crashed "after the first vote failed" implies that this would not have happened if the vote was passed.
Meaning that you believe the bailout would have stopped the stock market from crashing the way it did, thus implying it will go up after passed.

Explain yourself if this is not the case.
Because the way i see it is that if this is not what you meant, then what did your statement actually mean? It has no meaning!

So my main question to you is this....
If this vote was passed the first time, what would have happened to the market in your eyes?
Can it be safe to assume that whatever your answer to my last question is it will surely occur after this 2nd vote passed the bill?

[roger]

I was saying that the market crash was a wake up call to government that we needed to do something, and much more importantly, that they were responding to that and the calls to action from everywhere. Secondly, there is no implication that passing the bill would cause the market to go up - the market could go sideways, or down less than it would have if it hadn't been passed. But the statement was not a prediction about the market in the first place.

In short, lawmakers responded to the crash by working hard to pass the bill. That is in no way a statement that passing the bill would cause the market to climb, or that the -777 was a result of the original bill failing.

Now my turn to ask the questions. The full text of the bill is available online. Post the pork.

edit: Perhaps I didn't fully answer this: So my main question to you is this....
If this vote was passed the first time, what would have happened to the market in your eyes?
Can it be safe to assume that whatever your answer to my last question is it will surely occur after this 2nd vote passed the bill?
Haven't a clue. I'm not making predictions about the market. I don't believe such a thing is possible. My comment was about lawmakers responding to the market, not the market responding to lawmakers. Very different things.

[roger]

In light of this, I need to publicly and unconditionally retract my assertion of dishonesty to ThePainter, and apologize. By way of explanation, it didn't occur to me that my statement would be misunderstood, but clearly it was by at least one person. The OP was about why our representative passed the bill, and I was responding to that, but apparently my statement was brief enough to make that ambiguous.

[Nyarlathotep]

Hmmm, Congress failed to give Wall Street a handout and the market crashed. Then Congress changes its mind, gives them the handout and then the market crashes even more.

Kinda makes one wonder whether it was worth it.

[kallsop]

Did you notice the market crash after the first vote failed? Did you hear Warren Buffett calling this a financial "Pearl harbor"? I think I might have read something like that in the news....probably I just imagined it.


How'd the market do the next trading day after the "essential" bailout? I'm basking in the new financial stability and vote of confidence, how about you? Can't wait for the bill.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Yes, because all effects are immeditate, and we never have to wait.

.. in other words, there will be no immeditate signs if this worked or not.

[The Painter]

This should have taught us all one thing. We don't count. Not one iota.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein will vote yes today on the financial crisis bill.

{snip}

“If I care about the livelihood of my people I don’t really have a choice other than to do this,’’ Feinstein said.

This despite the fact that she has received 87,000 phone calls on this issue and all but 5,000 of them were against the bailout.

“What we’re finding is that people don’t understand this package,’’

87,000 - 5,000 = 82,000 against it, but they are 82,000 stupid people. She voted against her constituency. She's supposed to represent those people. Oh well, let them eat cake.

[OneShotKi11]

This should have taught us all one thing. We don't count. Not one iota.



87,000 - 5,000 = 82,000 against it, but they are 82,000 stupid people. She voted against her constituency. She's supposed to represent those people. Oh well, let them eat cake.

Its sad because in all actuality there is absolutely nothing we (the people) can do about it!
Now some give the seriously ridiculous reply of "vote for other people", but everyone with half a brain knows that doesnt work either.
Corruptness seems to be within everyone we vote for now a days.

Thats the main reason i know violence will break out one day. People get frustrated, people get annoyed, people get ignored and then people get violent.

Hopefully this all works out for the best and the bailout plan actually was the answer....:(

[geni]

87,000 - 5,000 = 82,000 against it, but they are 82,000 stupid people. She voted against her constituency. She's supposed to represent those people. Oh well, let them eat cake.

How many of those 82K are economists?

[The Painter]

How many of those 82K are economists?

Why? That doesn't matter. If you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

[geni]

Why? That doesn't matter. If you took all the economists in the world and laid them end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

True but at least it would come closer to being an informed non conclusion.

[OneShotKi11]

How many of those 82K are economists?

How many of them are American Tax Payers?
When did "We the people" turn into "We the Economists"?

[ponderingturtle]

87,000 - 5,000 = 82,000 against it, but they are 82,000 stupid people. She voted against her constituency. She's supposed to represent those people. Oh well, let them eat cake.

There are multiple models for how people are supposed to vote. One is that she should vote what the majority of those who voted for her want. The other is that in selecting someone you are selecting their judgement and trusting them.

Both have a place in representitive democracy, or what would the point of representitives be? Just poll the electorate on any issue.

[ponderingturtle]

How many of them are American Tax Payers?
When did "We the people" turn into "We the Economists"?

So if the issue was goverment funding of creation science that should get a significant portion of the science budget as so many americans believe in creationism?

Why let experts make decisions in anything.

[tomwaits]

True but at least it would come closer to being an informed non conclusion.

"Let's assume we have a conclusion..."




(economics joke)

[roger]

How'd the market do the next trading day after the "essential" bailout? I'm basking in the new financial stability and vote of confidence, how about you? Can't wait for the bill.
Once again, I was referring to why they worked so hard to pass the second bill, it was not a prediction of how the market would react to a passed bill.

[OneShotKi11]

So if the issue was goverment funding of creation science that should get a significant portion of the science budget as so many americans believe in creationism?

Why let experts make decisions in anything.

You brought that point up to the wrong person. I for one wouldnt mind children being taught creation science in schools.
Just like the Religious you are trying to hide your children from the "DarkSide of the Force". I for one would like my children to be well rounded and informed on all aspects of life.

As for experts, what experts?
Which of those that voted for the bailout were Economic experts might i ask?