have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

     
     


    corrected formatting, article below.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

     

    House GOP Bill Wants Unused Stimulus, Tarp Funds To Reduce Deficit



    By Corey Boles, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

    WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- House Republicans plan to introduce legislation Thursday aimed at requiring any unspent stimulus money or unallocated funds in the Treasury's financial rescue plan to be used to pay down the burgeoning federal government budget deficit.

    Combined, Republicans say the money could reduce the deficit by $610 billion. The deficit is projected to reach $1.8 trillion in the current fiscal year - by far, the largest ever.

    Some elements in the financial markets have begun questioning whether mainly foreign investors will continue to have a limitless appetite for buying U.S. debt, although so far there has been little evidence of difficulty in the regular Treasury bond auctions.

    Republicans in the House and Senate are trying to galvanize Americans fears about long-term fiscal imbalances and turn it into an election issue.

    The House effort is similar to various attempts in the Senate by Republicans to require the Treasury to use unused stimulus or Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to pay down the deficit.

    Given the minority status of Republicans in both chambers, none of the attempts have any realistic chance at becoming law, but GOP lawmakers hope that by keeping them on the agenda, the issue of the federal government's unprecedented spending will remain in the forefront of voters' minds heading into 2010's mid-term elections.

    The House bill would require the roughly $150 billion of unspent TARP money - what's left of the original $700 billion - to be used to reduce the deficit. It would require all money that is repaid by firms that have received cash infusions from the Treasury to also be targeted for deficit reduction.

    The bill would then claw back the $460 billion remaining of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, funneling it, too, towards deficit reduction.

    The legislation is set to be formally introduced Thursday by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative Republican lawmakers.

    -By Corey Boles, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6601; corey.boles@dowjones.com

      (END) Dow Jones Newswires   07-08-091752ET   Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    That would be the best bill in a long time but, dems want to spend that borrowed money not pay debt.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    the funny thing is this should go without saying.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from gabootwo2006. Show gabootwo2006's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    I have an even better idea. Take the remaining Stimulus and Tarp money and give it back to the American Taxpayer by way of a check. Every LEGAL AMERICAN TAXPAYER would get between $10,000 - $15,000 apiece (estimating) and that would help spend down thier own personal debt, stimulate purchasing (just in time for Christmas) and would ease a lot of minds of those who are unemployed or living barely paycheck to paycheck. In other words, most of the money would go back into the economy and into the sectors that are hurting right now.


    THE WHOLE IDEA IS THAT I BET MOST PEOPLE FEEL THEY COULD USE THIS MONEY MORE WISELY AND BETTER THEN THE LIBERAL LED GOVERNMENT CAN.

    What say you?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

       THAT WOULD BE THE SMART THING TO DO.... "LET ME BE CLEAR",  THE "BIG O" WILL NEED TO REVIEW THAT OVER THE NEXT 12 MONTHS OR SO !!!!!
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    So far it appears that the only tangible stimulus money that has reached the general public is the cash for clunkers program. Problem is that if you don't have a clunker then you haven't benefitted at all.

    Of course we hear that the stimlus has had a trickle down effect where jobs have been "saved" but that is much harder to demonstrate or dispute.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    its harder to deomonstrate or dispute b/c its bullshiite.

    and one time lump sum payments wouldn't be that great for the economy, think of the 'give you a fish, teach you how to fish' analogy to understand why.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Winston69. Show Winston69's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]its harder to deomonstrate or dispute b/c its bullshiite. and one time lump sum payments wouldn't be that great for the economy, think of the 'give you a fish, teach you how to fish' analogy to understand why.
    Posted by scauma82[/QUOTE]

    While you have a point from one perspective, from another the suggestion has some merit. If instead of givng trillions to the banks in the form of TARP, etc, they had given the same to American households with the stipulation that they pay off as much of their credit card debt and mortgage as they could, then what would have happened?

    1. Alot of the "toxic" assets would no longer have been toxic and banks would have required far less capital to fix their balance sheets.

    2. Many consumers would then be free to spend money in the economy rather than paying back debt. That would definitely be a boost.

    3. Real estate prices might have been supported rather than pushed into free fall with a huge quantity of panic sales and foreclosures. As a matter of fact many think that the current backlog of foreclosures and foreclosures delayed to keep them from going over to the banks at a loss is going to be part of the cause for  next "crash".
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious? : While you have a point from one perspective, from another the suggestion has some merit. If instead of givng trillions to the banks in the form of TARP, etc, they had given the same to American households with the stipulation that they pay off as much of their credit card debt and mortgage as they could, then what would have happened? 1. Alot of the "toxic" assets would no longer have been toxic and banks would have required far less capital to fix their balance sheets. 2. Many consumers would then be free to spend money in the economy rather than paying back debt. That would definitely be a boost. 3. Real estate prices might have been supported rather than pushed into free fall with a huge quantity of panic sales and foreclosures. As a matter of fact many think that the current backlog of foreclosures and foreclosures delayed to keep them from going over to the banks at a loss is going to be part of the cause for  next "crash".
    Posted by Winston69[/QUOTE]

    its not really my perspective but common economic belief. it would be hard to stipulate, and enforce people doing anything in particular with the funds they'd receive.
    1. toxic assets included a lot more than just outstanding mortgage payments.
    2. granted it was on a much smaller scale but the $600 rebate ppl got had no effect whatsoever on the economy.
    3. the type of mortgages people held was the problem, all the resetting of monthly mortgage payments was a big cause of foreclosures, if anything you would've delayed the inevitable.

    furthermore a CNN report addressed this earlier this year and found out that if you took both stimiluli (is that the correct plural term?) all tax filers would walk away with $9,718.49, hardly a drop in the proverbial bucket. also we would've felt the effects of inflation a lot more than we do now, and that point really can't be understated. also, despite the fact that most people erroniously think of this as 'tax dollars' i.e. the money that comes from your check, its not. its money essentially borrowed from over seas. try telling China you want a loan so you can just turn around and give it out to your people basically with no strings attached.

    i don't mean for this to sound like a defense of bailing out big business b/c its not. if anything i wouldv'e given corporations money not to shed jobs, and worked out some sort of tax incentive as well.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Winston69. Show Winston69's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    scauma2,

    I don't really like any of this either. I'd rather they let the banks go under, but when the boys from Goldman Sachs, excuse me the government saw the banks about to go under they chose to put several trillion into the banks (and AIG) and into the stimulus. $10,000 per person just for the stimulus is $40,000 for the average household. And that is for the stimulus. If they had given the TARP money to households then you can triple it.

    That's over $100,000 for a family of four. In hard hit areas that would put alot of mortgages right. And it would pay off alot of HE loans and Credit cards.

    It wouldn't be handed out no strings attached.

    If the foreign countries would not buy up our debt becasue of this, the government could do what it is going to do to fund their idiotic health insurance plan - "print" the money.

    That is what we are going to do to get out of this mess anyway. See the price of gold lately?? We know that is what they are going to do and they have said as much.

    In the end, it was the real estate bubble that caused this. The government had a choice of how to fix the problem it caused the banks and their balance sheets by just giving them money to offset the "losses" or give the same amount of money to people who held the loans to make them right and that would have fixed the bank's balance sheets too. Now the money is just sitting there and banks are not loaning money.

    JUst wait until the next mess gets started:

    1. Banks do not have to "mark-to-market" now and are keeping loans on their books at artificially high values.
    2. Banks are delaying foreclosure proceedings on many homes because they don't want to take the properties and then flood the market with distressed sales.
    3. Commercial loans are just starting the same cycle as residential loans did when this whole thing started two or three years ago.

    All the boys have been doing is buying time to keep the ship afloat. They have no clue what will get us out of this. If they had done what I was mentioning above then we'd still ahve problems, just different ones.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    the one reason i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the bailouts is b/c we don't really know just how many jobs it saved. that being said i think it could've been planned better and implemented better, i mean the Bush admin admitted they picked 700billion+ b/c it was a big number. and the obama admin probably didn't put much more thought into it, and if either did we wouldn't have this surplus left over that repub's want to put towards the debt.

    also, banks have a lot more leverage in 'printing' money than the gov't does via issuing credit.

    as for handing out money to people, yes a lot of responsible adults will pay off debt and save (which actually would hurt us) but a lot of them would go the route of lottery winner and blow it.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]its harder to deomonstrate or dispute b/c its bullshiite. and one time lump sum payments wouldn't be that great for the economy, think of the 'give you a fish, teach you how to fish' analogy to understand why.
    Posted by scauma82[/QUOTE]

    Brought us out of the 00-01 recession!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]the one reason i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the bailouts is b/c we don't really know just how many jobs it saved. that being said i think it could've been planned better and implemented better, i mean the Bush admin admitted they picked 700billion+ b/c it was a big number. and the obama admin probably didn't put much more thought into it, and if either did we wouldn't have this surplus left over that repub's want to put towards the debt. also, banks have a lot more leverage in 'printing' money than the gov't does via issuing credit. as for handing out money to people, yes a lot of responsible adults will pay off debt and save (which actually would hurt us) but a lot of them would go the route of lottery winner and blow it.
    Posted by scauma82[/QUOTE]

     We do not know if it saved any jobs and we know it created very few and that the estimates were greatly embellished.
    "We saved joibs" is a political statement that politicians use it means nothing since it is npt verifiable.

    The FACT is 500,000 more lost their jobs last week!!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious? :  We do not know if it saved any jobs and we know it created very few and that the estimates were greatly embellished. "We saved joibs" is a political statement that politicians use it means nothing since it is npt verifiable. The FACT is 500,000 more lost their jobs last week!!
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    i wasn't referring to their figures, just saying we don't know how many jobs it created but its probably safe to say it saved at least some.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious? : i wasn't referring to their figures, just saying we don't know how many jobs it created but its probably safe to say it saved at least some.
    Posted by scauma82[/QUOTE]

    Why is it safe to say it saved some?

    500,000 lost their jobs last week. Can we also ask why didn't it save any of those?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious? : Why is it safe to say it saved some? 500,000 lost their jobs last week. Can we also ask why didn't it save any of those?
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    key word was *probably*
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    and they aren't mutually exclusive, if bofa saved a 100 jobs b/c of their bailout than its safe to say it has saved some jobs. its all conjecture really but it is what it is.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from gabootwo2006. Show gabootwo2006's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]as for handing out money to people, yes a lot of responsible adults will pay off debt and save (which actually would hurt us) but a lot of them would go the route of lottery winner and blow it.
    Posted by scauma82[/QUOTE]


    And how is giving people back thier own money bad again? How is people paying off thier debts and saving up thier money in the banks a bad thing? How would that hurt the economy when in fact it would be fixing the economy. Banks need liquidity, people need to pay off thier debts, and more money spent in the economy would help stores and help the bottom line in the economy. Hell, maybe even a couple companies would hire instead of laying off people.

    Sure, a portion of society would blow the money on lottery tickets in the effort to try for the quick path to being rich. However, that is thier money and people should be able to purchase whatever they want (within reason) with money they have earned.

    This whole notion that "printing money" gives banks leverage is a falsehood. Printing money INSTANTLY IS DEBT AGAINST THE ECONOMY. Therefore, a bad thing.

    THE WHOLE POINT AGAIN IS WHO CAN BETTER SPEND THE MONEY TO FIX THE ECONOMY? The American Taxpayer or the Liberally run government. My money is on the American Taxpayer.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious? : And how is giving people back thier own money bad again? How is people paying off thier debts and saving up thier money in the banks a bad thing? How would that hurt the economy when in fact it would be fixing the economy. Banks need liquidity, people need to pay off thier debts, and more money spent in the economy would help stores and help the bottom line in the economy. Hell, maybe even a couple companies would hire instead of laying off people. Sure, a portion of society would blow the money on lottery tickets in the effort to try for the quick path to being rich. However, that is thier money and people should be able to purchase whatever they want (within reason) with money they have earned. This whole notion that "printing money" gives banks leverage is a falsehood. Printing money INSTANTLY IS DEBT AGAINST THE ECONOMY. Therefore, a bad thing. THE WHOLE POINT AGAIN IS WHO CAN BETTER SPEND THE MONEY TO FIX THE ECONOMY? The American Taxpayer or the Liberally run government. My money is on the American Taxpayer.
    Posted by gabootwo2006[/QUOTE]

    its not giving money back to people, it wasn't tax dollars used to fund the stimulus plans, it was debt borrowed from other countries, your tax dollars will go towards paying it back. if it was tax dollars it wouldn't be considered debt. it would just be the gov't spending its revenue.

    think of it like this, say McDonalds was in a crisis due to some fundamental fault with their operational procedures and asked Burger King to bail it out. now say instead of giving the bailout money to the fanchisers to fix their faults, they gave them to the people to buy more McDonald's. well they wouldn't really be fixing the problem and once all the money has come and gone through the system, the fundamental problem would still exist. that's a very crude example but i hope it makes some sense. spending beyond ones means was the problem from the get go and you can't fix that by having them spend even more beyond their means b/c its not sustainable. 

    saving money doesn't stimulate the economy. paying of debt in theory does but banks have shown to be leery of lending anyway.

    also your not considering inflation, the money wouldn't become totally worthless, i mean you could still wipe your azz with it, or burn it for heat, but either way you essentially would have weinmar germany all over again.
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from scauma82. Show scauma82's posts

    Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?

    In Response to Re: have (R)'s finally had a good idea? or are they playing Capt. Obvious?:
    [QUOTE]it wasn't tax dollars used to fund the stimulus plans , it was debt borrowed from other countries, your tax dollars will go towards paying it back ------------------- Absolutely fr1ggin astounding!
    Posted by GreginMeffa[/QUOTE]

    am i wrong?
     

Share