OT - Financial mess 101 ($700 billion bailout)

Welcome to the Digital Sportspage forum.

Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady

Locked
User avatar
Wilk5280
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:00 am
Location: Colorado

Post by Wilk5280 »

JackB1 wrote:
bdoughty wrote:
Dude, you are not to blame. Jack brought politics into this. Apparently he can't leave well enough alone. Sweet way of getting a dig in there also with the could it be "partisan crap."

Image
What did I do? The Stimulus Bill doesn't fall under "Financial Mess 101"?
If it doesn't, then I apologize. I simply wanted to get updated on the recent Stimulus bill and why there is Rep. opposition to it. I haven't been following it to closely in the last few days and wanted some insight. Thanks Rob, Naples & Wco for the good info.

Saying I brought "politics" into this thread is like saying A-Rod brought cheating into Sports.
Jack,
Are you F'ing serious????.

Read this here little quote of yours:
Does anyone know why the Republicans are so against passing Obama's Stimulus Bill? Is there really that much "pork spending" in there or is this just partisan crap?
How can you possibly think that does not bring politics into this? It's very much a political subject, don't ya think????

Not that I care one way or the other if politics are talked about around here. I'm of the opinion that if you're not mature enough to handle it or don't have very thick skin then you should just stay out of the threads. Obviously others here don't think that, and it's cool.

If you really want to know more about this so called stimulus package there are a lot better places than DSP to do your research. Especially after it's been brought to everyone's attention that political talk is no longer accepted here.
User avatar
Jared
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3618
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by Jared »

Sorry, long day, late to the party. As for the post, duh Jack. You are clearly putting politics in the post in a way that is completely unnecessary. This below is what you wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Does anyone know why the Republicans are so against passing Obama's Stimulus Bill? Is there really that much "pork spending" in there or is this just partisan crap?
Couldn't you just as easily have asked a simple question regarding information on pork spending in the bill, instead of bringing up Republicans, partisan crap, etc? Come on, you made the post partisan when you added in that stuff when it wasn't necessary. And you did this earlier in the thread a long time ago when you brought up Iraq...fortunately, no one took the bait.

I'm not going to lock the thread because one person didn't follow the rules, and things followed from there. Jack, think before you post, and I'm not giving you any more chances in this thread.
User avatar
bdoughty
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 6673
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 3:00 am

Post by bdoughty »

Poor A-Rod, guy just cant catch a break. :lol:
User avatar
Feanor
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Wilmington, DE, USA

Post by Feanor »

XXXIV wrote:Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth. Below you'll find some recent Cato work on "stimulus" packages.


Link to the petition...

http://vulcanhammer.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... mulus.html
Lower tax rates are an inefficient way to boost this current demand-constrained economy because a large percentage of any tax cut will be saved.

The reason we're stuck with public spending as the best way to get the economy out of recession is because interest rates can't really go any lower.
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

Jared wrote:Sorry, long day, late to the party. As for the post, duh Jack. You are clearly putting politics in the post in a way that is completely unnecessary. This below is what you wrote:
JackB1 wrote:Does anyone know why the Republicans are so against passing Obama's Stimulus Bill? Is there really that much "pork spending" in there or is this just partisan crap?
Couldn't you just as easily have asked a simple question regarding information on pork spending in the bill, instead of bringing up Republicans, partisan crap, etc? Come on, you made the post partisan when you added in that stuff when it wasn't necessary. And you did this earlier in the thread a long time ago when you brought up Iraq...fortunately, no one took the bait.

I'm not going to lock the thread because one person didn't follow the rules, and things followed from there. Jack, think before you post, and I'm not giving you any more chances in this thread.
There are plenty of overtly political posts in this thread other than mine.
Just because I used the word "partisan" makes it offensive? I ASKED if it was "partisan". I didn't call it partisan. Whatever. I'm just staying out of this thread because I can't tell what is "permissable" and what is not.

Here are some examples and just from the past week or so.....

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:33 am Post subject:
To preface, let me just say that per CNN Republicans seeking to oppose the stimulus package in its current state published a list of problem items in the stim pkg. (at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/ ... index.html )


Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:32 am Post subject:
They'd have a bit more credibility on "fiscal discipline" if they were so hawkish about deficits when they were in charge and there was no need for fiscal stimulus.


Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:36 am Post subject:
Hill Republican: Stimulus aids illegal immigrants
WASHINGTON (AP) - The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.

The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.

A revolt among GOP conservatives to similar provisions of a 2008 economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.

The GOP official voiced concerns about the latest economic aid measure on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Republicans have already blasted the package for including what they argue is wasteful spending and omitting tax cuts for wealthier people and businesses they say are needed to jump-start the anemic economy.

Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday. GOP senators arranged a midday news conference to voice their concerns.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:14 am Post subject:
The opposition to the stimulus plan is unfortunately more political than substantive. The illegal immigrants getting money out of this plan sounds like a red herring. Also some GOP politicians railing against the fact that the NEA will be getting $50 million is ideological and more symbolic than anything else. Their plan instead is just to give more tax cuts to the higher brackets, which have thus far failed in this decade to product a large number of new jobs.

Obama has been in office less than 2 weeks? Either this stimulus will work and he'll sail through re-election or it will fail and revive the GOP in 2 or 4 years. If they really believed this is a bad idea, then they should just give Obama and the Democrats enough rope, especially since the electorate voted for them partly to take the country in a different direction.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:52 am Post subject:
It's sad but true. This stimulus package is an absolute joke. If it were actually going towards stimulating the economy instead of spending on pork which has maybe a 5% effect of stimulating the economy.

We are in a global financial crisis that is on the verge of a total global meltdown and our politicians are still operating with the " Washington business as usual" mentality.
Last edited by JackB1 on Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pk500
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 33886
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
Contact:

Post by pk500 »

Jack:

Given your political views, using the terms "partisan crap" and "Republican" in one your posts clearly is political and biased.

The bastard offspring of Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller can see that.

Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles

"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature

XBL Gamertag: pk4425
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

pk500 wrote:Jack:

Given your political views, using the terms "partisan crap" and "Republican" in one your posts clearly is political and biased.

The bastard offspring of Stevie Wonder and Helen Keller can see that.

Take care,
PK
I agree, but to dance around a few words is silly IMO. If you just read thru the last few pages of this thread(or just look at my examples) and the party names have been used many times before. I guess since I used the "P"-word, I crossed the line? Either way, you guys can continue tap dancing around the pink elephants in the room. It's too complicated for my simple brain :)

p.s. you are still the "King of All Analogies " :)
User avatar
Jared
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3618
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by Jared »

JackB1 wrote:There are plenty of overtly political posts in this thread other than mine. Just because I used the word "partisan" makes it offensive? I ASKED if it was "partisan". I didn't call it partisan. Whatever. I'm just staying out of this thread because I can't tell what is "permissable" and what is not.
Jack, you clearly don't get the point. If you question whether a groups opinion is "partisan crap", you should know that it WILL cause problems especially since a) there are probably people in this forum that agree with that opinion that you are questioning as "partisan crap" and b) there's a no politics rule. That's just a recipe to other people to respond partisan-ly as well, have them respond, etc.

And to make things really, really clear: I have no desire to lock this post, especially since it's a big OT thing that is probably affecting everyone in the forums (the state of our economy), and I really don't want to be stifling the conversation on the forums anymore than necessary. Of course, the posts will touch on politics, and that's fine. I simply don't want this thread to a) veer off-topic into a primarily political thread, and/or a waaaaaa Dems/Repubs thread and b) I don't want it to get overtly partisan or political re: the discussion at hand. So, for example, you can ask about examples of pork in a political bill (though I do think Google will give you much better answers). BUT when you make it partisan when it doesn't need to be partisan, that's when it becomes uncool.
User avatar
JackB1
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 8124
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 4:00 am

Post by JackB1 »

Jared wrote:
Jack, you clearly don't get the point.
You're correct. That's why I am better off not posting in this thread.
I will stick to Google.

Continue the discussions......I don't want to ruin anyone's fun :)
User avatar
jondiehl
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by jondiehl »

Feanor wrote:Lower tax rates are an inefficient way to boost this current demand-constrained economy because a large percentage of any tax cut will be saved.
Not in my neck of the woods. I can't go out to eat at night without waiting for a long line at most chain/family restaraunts. Going to Home Depot, Lowe's, Best Buy, etc... on a Saturday and trying to find a parking spot makes it look like Black Friday. I'm just not seeing the contraction in spending, at least around here. Sure, maybe in Detroit and other areas you'll see that, but it seems to be business as usual in the St. Louis suburbs (even with major layoffs and shutdowns at the Chrysler plant here).

Yes, there will be a certain percentage of people that would take a savings in income taxes and just add more to their 401k or other savings vehicles thereby not putting those funds back into the economy in the short-term, but Joe Sixpack is still going to live paycheck to paycheck and blow his wad every 2 weeks, whatever sized wad that is.

If we have an increase in taxes, the higher tax bracket earners might not change their spending too much, but I bet that the the middle class and lower (maybe upper-middle and down) will trim off a significant amount of non-essential spending that helps keep the economy churning.
XBoxJon
[url=http://live.xbox.com/member/XBoxJon]Gamer Profile[/url]
[url=http://live.xbox.com/en-us/profile/MessageCenter/SendMessage.aspx?gt=XBoxJon]Send me a XBL message[/url]
User avatar
Feanor
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Wilmington, DE, USA

Post by Feanor »

It's nice your local area is doing OK and I don't see many empty parking spots near those type of stores where I live either, but the Advance Report is that US GDP fell 3.8% in the last quarter of 2008 and a lot of that is from reduced consumer spending by people who have lost their jobs (and consequently their healthcare) and/or a lot of their wealth.
User avatar
wco81
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 9575
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: San Jose

Post by wco81 »

I see a lot of traffic in some cities around here too.

But maybe it's not quite as high as it was a year or two ago.

More and more, there are people waving signs on the corner to advertise store closing sales.

Rumors are that Rite-Aid chain may go under. And other shaky businesses, which are having problems financing debt are also suspected of teetering on the edge, like SiriusXM.

I flew last week and there were a lot of empty seats, something I don't recall seeing for at least 5 years.
User avatar
pk500
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 33886
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
Contact:

Post by pk500 »

wco81 wrote:I flew last week and there were a lot of empty seats, something I don't recall seeing for at least 5 years.
A good friend of mine here in town works as a Northeastern sales rep for a company that sells business videoconferencing software and equipment. His business is booming, which dovetails with your observation on the flight.

Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles

"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature

XBL Gamertag: pk4425
User avatar
FatPitcher
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 1068
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 3:00 am

Post by FatPitcher »

I've seen the data - savings rates are up as people worry about their future cash flows, and I am sure that a greater percentage of tax refunds will be saved than normal, even if you're one of the 5% of working Americans not getting a tax cut. I don't have a link, but I'm sure it's not too hard to find that data. However, the savings rate is still under 3%, which is well below what people should be saving, according to every article on the subject I've ever read (typically they say 5-10%, pay yourself first, etc.).

It seems like the constant "stimulation" of the economy since 2001 is just making things worse. It's like giving caffeine pills to someone coming off a crystal meth high. You can't keep it artificially propped up forever, and the more you spend trying to do that, the worse the correction is going to be.

What if people actually did save how much they were supposed to, didn't spend money they didn't have on things they didn't need, and generally managed their finances wisely? The economy would suffer even more than it is now. Does that mean we need to try to maintain irresponsible levels of personal spending? Is that even possible, given that this recession seems to have insolvency as a cause rather than a symptom of lost confidence?
User avatar
Feanor
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Wilmington, DE, USA

Post by Feanor »

What the economy needs most of all is to avoid a deflationary spiral which feeds on itself, that's why consumers saving more (with interest rates already at almost zero) and spending less right now is bad, even though it should be a good thing.

Getting laid off or fired is bad enough, but now more employers are trying to lower their unemployment costs by challenging workers' right to receive unemployment benefits:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29151900/
User avatar
wco81
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 9575
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: San Jose

Post by wco81 »

Some companies are trying to slip in price increases now, as their revenue streams dry up. SiriusXM, which can't lose customers, slipped in increases for some customers. DirecTV is pulling a big one next month.

Lately gas prices have been going up out here, in the dead of winter, with no appreciable increase in oil prices.
User avatar
pk500
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 33886
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
Contact:

Post by pk500 »

I guess my wife and I have been bad for the economy for a very long time since we're obsessive savers/investors and very frugal spenders.

Oh, well.

Miserly yours,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles

"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature

XBL Gamertag: pk4425
User avatar
wco81
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 9575
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: San Jose

Post by wco81 »

Thing is, if all this spending -- not just TARP, not just the stimulus bill but up to $2 trillion more for Geitner's plan -- inflates the currency later, as some are predicting, then it hurts those who have been saving.

Buying power of your savings would decline and these days, there aren't too many places to get decent, safe, returns.

Just had a CD mature a couple of weeks ago, had forgotten about it and they rolled it over. But the yield went from over 4% (for a 4-month term) to .75%.

Part of it was Wachovia was offering more competitive rates to draw in deposits and then Wells Fargo took them over and they're tightwads. :x
User avatar
Rodster
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 13512
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 4:00 am

Post by Rodster »

Federal obligations exceed world GDP
Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?
8O

WND Exclusive MONEYNETDAILY
Posted: February 13, 2009
11:35 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

You can read the rest here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=88851
User avatar
XXXIV
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 17337
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:00 am
Location: United States

Post by XXXIV »

Rodster wrote:Federal obligations exceed world GDP
Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?
8O
Why would anyone worry?

Help is one the way. Just past that huge spending bill.

Historically printing money and then spending it on anything that makes you happy has always been a great success.
User avatar
wco81
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 9575
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: San Jose

Post by wco81 »

Tricky to measure obligations which run for decades against 1-year of GDP output.

I don't see anyone campaigning against doing away with either Social Security or Medicare though.
User avatar
Feanor
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 2550
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Wilmington, DE, USA

Post by Feanor »

Keep turning your head far enough to the right and you'll eventually see someone doing that. :)
User avatar
Rodster
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 13512
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 4:00 am

Post by Rodster »

User avatar
XXXIV
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 17337
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 4:00 am
Location: United States

Post by XXXIV »

GM huh?....hmmm....Schocking! :evil:

Speaking of cars...When I drive the blind spot is on my left. :)
User avatar
pk500
DSP-Funk All-Star
DSP-Funk All-Star
Posts: 33886
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:00 am
Location: Syracuse, N.Y.
Contact:

Post by pk500 »

Rodster wrote:GM considering Chapter 11 filing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090214/ts_nm/us_gm_plan
If so, then GM shouldn't get a cent of government bailout money.

Chapter 11 will allow GM to reorganize. Once that happens, then it should fix their union problem and build better a better product, just like any other business.

Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles

"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature

XBL Gamertag: pk4425
Locked