BleepingComputer.com: What should be done with the bailout package?

With our new president in office, he's hit the ground running. Between the closing of Guantanamo Bay, the repealing of the Bush ordinances on abortion rights, and the pledge to raise the curtain on White House transparency, Obama's shaking up of Washington is already getting readings on the Rector Scale. However, this latest Bailout proposition has a majority of Republicans, and some Democrats, shaking in their boots. It is supposed to be aimed to better effect Main Street moreso than Wall Street, and that is a welcome proposal. The primary problem of course is the overall price tag on this bailout. At over $800,000,000,000 (8 hundred-billion) dollars, it is understandable to see why some would be skeptical of this plan. So what do you in the Bleeping Computer community think of this Bailout? Is the price tag reasonable? What, if anything, can be done to make the bailout more effective? Is there anything in the bailout that you would deem as unneccesary or wasteful spending (a.k.a. earmarks)?

As I said in the description, try to keep this un-partison. I want honest opinions, no campaign rhetoric, no partison repeats. Only honest thoughts and opinions.

Hi Mike.
Most people don't have a clue to what's actually in the current "stimulus" package.
Here it is as it stands at the moment (in pdf). It will change, count on it.
I personally think the majority of it wasteful and will do little to stimulate the economy.
We will come out of this but not from that. These things are cyclicle. As far as Obama goes, if we come out of it while he's in office, he's a hero. If we don't, he's a buffoon. Neither will be his fault.

Looks like the stimulus bill passed in the House.

Sadly, the votes were right down party lines. I had hoped Obama would make a few more concessions on certain spending items for the sake of reaching across the isle. But it's a fine line...if he caves too much he will be seen as a weak leader; if he "sticks to his guns" he will be seen as partisan and worse, a hypocrite, as his message all along has been the creation of a new, non-partisan political atmosphere.

At the same time I can't shake the feeling that congressional Republicans drug their heals. However, the fact that a few Democrats voted against the bill will "cover their tracks."

Anyway, as hopeful as I am for a change in the way things work in Washington, I realize that any significant change is going to take time. One speech can't undo the foundation of decades of partisan politics.

This post has been edited by locally pwned: 28 January 2009 - 07:54 PM

It's a true bummer to see alot of business leave due to the fact we can no longer as consumers afford the items they are producing. It's quite sad. A friend of mine works at Target. He said they are cutting hours and removing about 400 Jobs from the corporate office. I'm thinking.. Whoa. That's a shame. I wonder if that's company wide with Bestbuy Wal*mart Dick's sporting goods and so on. I work for a food market so.. I haven't really felt the repercussion of a failing marketplace. This falls under. "Everyone needs to eat" Type deal. I Think Obama is trying his best. That's all we really ask for.

The Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate need to take a good, hard look at what's going on in the state of California. The state is going down the tubes, because for over 2 years now, the republicans won't agree on any tax hikes (or even closing tax loopholes, like the one that allows rich folks to keep their yachts in another state for a few months so they won't have to pay the sales tax on them). The democrats won't agree to any useful spending cuts. children and the chronically ill and the poor are getting the short end of the stick, as always. The governor is trying to impose a 2-day unpaid furlough per month on all state employees against the wishes of the controller, who says it is unconstitutional; a court has just sided with the governor. The governor, meanwhile, has made several appointments of termed-out politicians as rewards for their siding with him on various issues, or for endorsing certain candidates. And the financial nightmare keeps getting worse and worse. In this case, the fault is deep in both parties. Some Californians are calling for a Total Recall of all sitting legislators, plus maybe the governor, who of course starred in the movie Total Recall.

Some of us are old enough to remember the budget freezes during the Clinton administration. A major inconvenience for most Americans, much worse for some others. The economy wasn't in real bad shape then. Now everything is a total mess; it's like our federal government is trying to prevent an avalanche that is already in progress, and the gop is shooting off bombs to speed up the avalanche.

Makes me wish we had a parliamentary system. At least then the coalition would try to cooperate for at least a while. Some of the gop opposition to the stimulus bill has been principled, but it seems mostly to be for posturing's sake, with no really helpful suggestions made for the total package. Opposition alone will do the u.s. no good. We need solutions, not just talk.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 30 January 2009 - 02:39 PM

California needs to look out for California. Once the Federal Government starts bailing out States that can't manage their own problems, the US will then indeed be a Socialistic Nation.

The "stimulus" which should be read as "The Prelude to the Bankruptcy of the Government of the United States of America", is a horrible idea. It was when we got our $600 checks in the mail and it was when we dumped $700 billion into a financial market that destroyed itself. The differance money we have vs. money we have to borrow. We borrowed money from China for the stimulus checks last year, we borrowed the $700 Billion bailout for wall street, and we're gonna barrow this money. We'll have more Debt than Tax revenues ,not that we don't already but you can only barrow so much.

The point I was trying to make about the state of California is childish behavior on both sides of the political aisle leading to a government's paralysis and rapidly worsening financial condition. This has been going on for 2 years. California's major legislation has been done by referendum for years, which makes the situation even worse. If the gop is going to object for objection's sake on the federal level, our country will go even further down the tubes. Nightmares to follow. . .

First the GOP in Congress was against infra-structure spending, now they're for it. They're still pushing trickle-down economics, although it has been proven not to work. It wasn't the dems who circumvented the oversight rules on the first part of the bailout/TARP, although they never should have agreed to such poorly drafted legislation in the first place. The American public has been scammed by the first part of the bailout, but some stimulus is needed.

Part of the problem with the dem package is that there is a lot of social engineering included. Part of it is designed to keep much-needed programs afloat, but it really should have been separated from the stimulus package.

Rather than editing my previous post, I am adding a new one because of a related story in today's newspapers.

In a story by David M. Herszenhorn of The New York Times, syndicated today, Saturday, January 31, 2009's print media, he reported that Senate Republicans are pushing up to a $15,000 tax credit for home buyers (I believe at least part of this has to be repaid in future tax years). The gop senators want to strip social policy spending from the stimulus bill.

The senators wish to remove what they consider special interest provisions such as the honey disaster insurance. That may be a very short-sighted idea, as honey bees are in danger of dying out, and with it will come loss of most of our plant foods, including grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and major ecological disaster. There has not been much attention paid to this provision, so i don't know whom it would benefit.

The gop senators also oppose $400 million in spending to treat and prevent STD's, also a large amount to prevent certain other communicable diseases.

The gop is for limiting the effect of the alternative minimum tax on middle class households and against giving stim checks to the disabled and unemployed.

The gop senators are suggesting that "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects be quick-tracked in a separate bill and that funds for infrastructure improvement in the stimulus package be increased. This is a major change in GOP policy, which since the era of Reagan, has wanted to leave infrastructure spending to local and state governments.

Some members of the GOP are suggesting that all creditworthy homeowners be allowed to refinance their mortgages to a rate of 4.5% or lower.

Finally, some helpful suggestions that are a starting point for fruitful discussion. Evidently the GOP were afraid that the dems would use the stimulus package as an opportunity to ram through social policies that they thought warranted more discussions. This is a reasonable concern, although some important programs are at the breaking point.

It is possible that the GOP in the house united against the stimulus bill in order to buy their Senate colleagues time to negotiate, and not only to be obstructionists. Let us hope that was the case.

As to those who are against the stimulus as a whole and say that folks should be self-sufficient: you don't know what your personal future will bring. Very few people can achieve total self-sufficiency, and there is always the possibility of an accident, an illness, a natural disaster. No one can provide for all their personal possibilities. Allstate may say it is "there", but actually, it is the government.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 31 January 2009 - 12:29 PM

Gonna break this one down into sections
[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1115302' date='Jan 31 2009, 12:28 PM']Senate Republicans are pushing up to a $15,000 tax credit for home buyers (I believe at least part of this has to be repaid in future tax years).[/quote]
If its like the current $7500 housing tax credit all would have to be paid back (the current one is paid back at $500 per year). The one you mentioned is targeted at first time home buyers, in an attempt to stir the market, get them out of apartment complexes, and reduce rent rates, thus lowering the cost of living and freeing up consumer money. (At least thats the thought)

[quote]The gop senators also oppose $400 million in spending to treat and prevent STD's, also a large amount to prevent certain other communicable diseases.[/quote]

Hasn't helped much in the past and not likely to create jobs. (Volunteers or already employed government workers would be handing them out)

[quote]The gop senators are suggesting that "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects be quick-tracked in a separate bill and that funds for infrastructure improvement in the stimulus package be increased. This is a major change in GOP policy, which since the era of Reagan, has wanted to leave infrastructure spending to local and state governments.[/quote]

TVA, Hoover Dam, and the National Highway system have 2 things in common. 1)They span multiple states which make states weary of unequal spending 2) They provided good jobs when jobs were hard to come by. Obama needs this spending to create his Broadband network (which will have to span multiple states) and improve the Highway system which is in horrible disrepair (and was originally built for the US Military)

[quote]Some members of the GOP are suggesting that all creditworthy homeowners be allowed to refinance their mortgages to a rate of 4.5% or lower.[/quote]

It frees up consumer cash. Helps stabilize the Housing market. Cleans the ARM mess up (which started this snowball rolling).

Not touching the last line.

I wasn't so worried about the bipartisan result of the vote. The republicans were in a safe position to vote no, knowing that the stimulus package would win anyway. As a politician, to to say no to something that is risky, knowing it will pass anyway, means that if it succeeds, they win, and if it fails, they can say they voted against it.

Americans don't pay much in taxes. So tax cuts seem absurd. The reason there's not a working health-care system, public transportation system and system in place to take transport people through jobless stages, is because Americans don't pay enough taxes to support this type of infrastructure.

When I'm president, I'm going to do two things. I'm going to insist that all parents of children up to the age of 18 work 6 hours a day each. Neither can work more. If the household can get by with only one parent working 6 hours, so be it. Every child deserves to see its parent for more than dinner/bath/bedtime story. Men need a chance to take part in their children's lives. Women need to be able to have a life among adults and economic independence.

The second thing I'm going to do when I'm president ... oh, I forgot ... dang my Alzheimers is flaring up again.

[quote name='"Zllio"']Americans don't pay much in taxes.[/quote]

What planet are you on. I pay a great deal in taxes, somewhere close to $15,000 a year. I am taxed off.

GTK, folks in the U.S. pay much less in taxes than do those in the U.K., in Europe, and in much of the world. Income tax in the U.K. used to go up to 95% of earned income, also in some of the Scandinavian countries. Our inheritance taxes are ridiculously low, and I am not sure whether the Bush administration succeeded in getting the inheritance tax cut entirely. Many people in the high tax level countries are quite happy, as they get excellent government-sponsored health care, much support socially and economically for families, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, we do have a lot of tax-expatriates, especially entertainers, living here in the U.S. to avoid the high tax rates in their native countries.

The tax system in the U.S. is very regressive, with the middle class and working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income in income tax than do the wealthy. The wealthy get better services from the government from top to bottom.

The way I look at it, Warren Buffett was right when he drafted his will to leave the bulk of his wealth to charities. He felt that his adult children would be better people for having to earn their wealth. They are successful and do not seem to be to put out by his decision.

Aside from small family farms, there is no necessity from a social standpoint to leave vast sums of wealth to one's descendants. One could leave quite a lot and still pay a fair share to the government. I think there is a fair argument that leaving huge estates causes a lot of social damage. Our inheritance taxes should allow for large gifts to genuine charities, a small fortune to descendants, and a good amount to the government.

The wealthy have been skating by on their influence for years. It is time that they pay their fair share, and that would be not nearly so high an amount as estates have to pay in other countries.

A certain amount of social mobility is necessary to maintain an open and democratic society. 95% of the U.S. wealth has been flowing upward for years. What is fair about that?

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1117170' date='Feb 1 2009, 04:20 PM']GTK, folks in the U.S. pay much less in taxes than do those in the U.K., in Europe, and in much of the world. Income tax in the U.K. used to go up to 95% of earned income, also in some of the Scandinavian countries. Our inheritance taxes are ridiculously low, and I am not sure whether the Bush administration succeeded in getting the inheritance tax cut entirely. Many people in the high tax level countries are quite happy, as they get excellent government-sponsored health care, much support socially and economically for families, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, we do have a lot of tax-expatriates, especially entertainers, living here in the U.S. to avoid the high tax rates in their native countries.

The tax system in the U.S. is very regressive, with the middle class and working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income in income tax than do the wealthy. The wealthy get better services from the government from top to bottom.

The way I look at it, Warren Buffett was right when he drafted his will to leave the bulk of his wealth to charities. He felt that his adult children would be better people for having to earn their wealth. They are successful and do not seem to be to put out by his decision.

Aside from small family farms, there is no necessity from a social standpoint to leave vast sums of wealth to one's descendants. One could leave quite a lot and still pay a fair share to the government. I think there is a fair argument that leaving huge estates causes a lot of social damage. Our inheritance taxes should allow for large gifts to genuine charities, a small fortune to descendants, and a good amount to the government.

The wealthy have been skating by on their influence for years. It is time that they pay their fair share, and that would be not nearly so high an amount as estates have to pay in other countries.

A certain amount of social mobility is necessary to maintain an open and democratic society. 95% of the U.S. wealth has been flowing upward for years. What is fair about that?[/quote]

I understand all of that , what I am saying is that OUR taxes art too high as it is. We have property tax, sales, tax. Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, City income tax. I am paying over $4,000 a year on property taxes, which fund the school system. The state of Ohio ruled years ago that this method was unconstitutional but it has yet to be fixed. The upper 2% of wage earners in this country pay 95% of the taxes. I do not really care what tax rate they have in The UK as I don't live there. Facts are that the State of California caused their own problems and they should fix them. They hire a nutcase like AHnord and expect a movies star ( I use that term lightly) to fix things?

Because of taxpayer revolts, a lot of tax income collected by local governments is raided by higher-level governments (county and state). This while the state governments are requiring the local level governments to provide certain programs and services without providing the money for those programs and services. The same thing goes on at the federal level: the feds are mandating programs and services which are quite expensive, but not providing funds for them in many cases. Then the states get into trouble for non-compliance.

The gubernator had an excellent record for making a fortune in real estate investments over many years, so he was thought to be quite the good businessman. He was running against a popular Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamente, who had an excellent record of public service, but got involved in a minor scandal about his political ethics. Bustamente did not get into a lot of trouble, but he did lose the election. He is no longer a public servant.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 02 February 2009 - 12:27 PM