$838 billion stimulus bill passes Senate

[Cknolls]

I agree there should be a minimum number of years served.

 

Would one 38 year pension be smaller than the two 18 + 20 year pensions?

 

Sure depending on the level of gov't served.

[Cknolls]

Exactly. I would think anyone looking at that would realize the loophole needs to be closed.

 

Not only closed, but retroactive.

[Cknolls]

Being one of the biggest bears and pessimists on this website, when this "stimulus" fails to create 3 million jobs what is the "exit" strategy of this administration?

 

They still have the auto cos., soon to be the retailers, and God knows who else will line up to the trough. J.C Penney stated today that they will lay off workers and I believe I heard, maybe from the chairman of J.C. Penney, that the retail industry could start to lay off 100,000 people a month.

So no matter what Obama says these jobs are going people.

 

When Obama says save or create, how do we quantify that? If retailers do indeed start to lay people off at the above rate, what will the administration say? It started on Bush's watch? I inherited this? Just asking?

 

 

I may have been optimistic when I predicted 660 on the SPX.

[Texsox]

Sure depending on the level of gov't served.

 

So we would encourage people to stay in the same agency instead if moving. That is probably a good thing. The hidden danger is the more unattractive we make government jobs, the worse the employees that serve us. The reverse is also a problem, better pay and benefits for public versus private. That's ain't right either.

[Texsox]

Not only closed, but retroactive.

 

That seems slimy to do to the average worker.

[hawksfan61]

Yeah, I'd be good with it being just first timers, or once every 10 years as you said. Just to keep the speculators away from it.

 

The Senate version applied to all home buyers, but the catch was you had to live there for a certain amount of time (I believe 3 years but don't quote me on that) and if you sold before that period ended you would have to pay the $15,000 back. There was ample protection against speculators here and for some reason they got rid of it, which I think was a pretty stupid idea. Housing is a huge drag on the economy right now and anything to get that moving again would be a huge help IMO. I don't know if they have gone back to just the $7500 credit that expires June 30th or what, but as of this afternoon the $15,000 was out.

[Balta1701]

The Senate version applied to all home buyers, but the catch was you had to live there for a certain amount of time (I believe 3 years but don't quote me on that) and if you sold before that period ended you would have to pay the $15,000 back. There was ample protection against speculators here and for some reason they got rid of it, which I think was a pretty stupid idea. Housing is a huge drag on the economy right now and anything to get that moving again would be a huge help IMO. I don't know if they have gone back to just the $7500 credit that expires June 30th or what, but as of this afternoon the $15,000 was out.

I believe the burst balloon metaphor works pretty well here. If you keep trying to blow air into a balloon with a hole in it, you might slightly reinflate the balloon, but once you stop blowing on it, the air is going to leak right back out.

 

Yes, housing is a huge drag on the economy, but there's simply no way around that. For the past decade, housing prices have been propped up at a level well above what people could afford based on their salaries by the fact that housing prices were going up. Once housing prices stopped going up, there was nothing left to prop up housing prices. Any temporary action designed to try to restore that market is going to wind up being pretty useless overall, because as soon as that tax break ends, housing prices would resume their drop towards an equilibrium level where people can afford homes based on their salaries.

 

I'll give you an example. If I can pull off one of the Postdoc's I'm applying for, a logical move for me may be to purchase a condo. Especially if I start around Dec. 1 or early next year, because I think the market should be close to bottoming by then, or at the least it should have declined so much that the amount I'd pay in rent will be less than the amount it would decline, thus allowing me to build up some equity from the purchase. On the other hand though, if this tax break existed, but it was expected to expire in early Feb., if I wasn't in a position to complete the purchase by the expiration date, it would make no sense to me to make the purchase, because I'd expect another $15k or so of a drop in the housing pirce once the temporary tax break went away, thus eating up the tax break as wasted $ and potentially killing off my hope to build up additional equity by spreading out the decline longer.

 

Housing isn't going to just "get moving again". Housing has to fall back to where housing should have been in the first place, and having the government pay a chunk just means that part of the drop would be eaten up by the government rather than the banks. Which of course, is pretty much what the Fed has been doing anyway.

[BigSqwert]

Media Matters answers my question of "where are all the economists to explain the stimulus package on TV."

By John Amato Thursday Feb 12, 2009 6:45am

 

I wrote a post a week ago called: Why aren't there hundreds of economists on my TV explaining the stimulus package? It was picked up by Yahoo News via the Huffington Post. Thankfully Media Matters did a little research and broke down the TV coverage to see where these hundreds of economists are lurking.

 

Guess what? They weren't on the air trying to explain one of the most important times in our nation's history. The networks decided to stick with the arguing talking head monkey format.

In the hour following Pre

s

ident Obama'

s

February 9

pre

s

s

conference

-- during which he gave a brief addre

s

s

about the economic recovery legi

s

lation currently moving through Congre

s

s

-- cable new

s

program

s

featured gue

s

t

s

and paneli

s

t

s

to di

s

cu

s

s

Obama'

s

remar

k

s

. But CNN, Fox New

s

, and M

S

NBC did not bring on a

s

ingle economi

s

t to di

s

cu

s

s

the plan. The ab

s

ence of economi

s

t

s

in the po

s

t-pre

s

s

conference di

s

cu

s

s

ion wa

s

con

s

i

s

tent with the

ob

s

ervation

made by Croo

k

s

andliar

s

.com founder John Amato in a February 4 article on The Huffington Po

s

t:

 

"I'm

s

ure you've heard about the hundred

s

of economi

s

t

s

that are either for or again

s

t Pre

s

ident Obama'

s

s

timulu

s

plan. My que

s

tion to the media i

s

: Where are they?" Indeed, a Media Matter

s

for America review of the

S

unday tal

k

s

how

s

and 12 cable new

s

program

s

from January 25 through February 8 found that during 139 1/2 hour

s

of programming on

S

unday morning

s

and wee

k

day afternoon

s

and evening

s

, of 460 total gue

s

t appearance

s

in di

s

cu

s

s

ion

s

about the economic recovery legi

s

lation and debate in Congre

s

s

, only 25 were made by economi

s

t

s

-- a mere 5 percent.

Check their full break down. It's sickening. Only 5% of them were put on air. It's not that Americans are uninformed, but that our media fails to do their jobs and intentionally decides to keep them uninformed. They would rather have a recently defeated Lindsey Graham and John Boehner appear to whine and whine and whine about President Obama's stimulus package.

 

LINK

Edited February 12, 2009 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

LINK

 

I don't now about the other networks, but MSNBC had live footage of the Geither testimony pretty much all day on the 9th. That is a pretty bogus accusation without talking about why.

[lostfan]

I don't now about the other networks, but MSNBC had live footage of the Geither testimony pretty much all day on the 9th. That is a pretty bogus accusation without talking about why.

Normally I prefer CNN coverage, but their standard way of offering analytic insight is to get 4 people on a panel and have them shout talking points over each other. Either that or have some celebrity on Larry King. Pretty awesome.

[kapkomet]

I don't now about the other networks, but MSNBC had live footage of the Geither testimony pretty much all day on the 9th. That is a pretty bogus accusation without talking about why.

Most of them did. I watched it, and for someone who is supposedly so f***ing smart, he's pretty damn clueless.

[southsider2k5]

Normally I prefer CNN coverage, but their standard way of offering analytic insight is to get 4 people on a panel and have them shout talking points over each other. Either that or have some celebrity on Larry King. Pretty awesome.

 

To be honest, that kind of stuff is why I don't watch much network news. CNBC is on here at work, so I watch that all of the time. They also usually have MSNBC on the other channel, though I like it better when they have Bloomberg.

[lostfan]

To be honest, that kind of stuff is why I don't watch much network news. CNBC is on here at work, so I watch that all of the time. They also usually have MSNBC on the other channel, though I like it better when they have Bloomberg.

Yeah, all of the major networks do it. It's obnoxious as hell. They almost always descend into partisan sniping. Sometimes there is an exception when they have a couple of Congressmen from each party having a respectful debate but that's the exception and not the norm.

[bmags]

To be honest, that kind of stuff is why I don't watch much network news. CNBC is on here at work, so I watch that all of the time. They also usually have MSNBC on the other channel, though I like it better when they have Bloomberg.

 

Seriously, I love bloombergs content but they have to get a better format, I feel like I'm watching a high school news studio. But, I'm still in love with maria bartaromo so...CNBC it is.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

But, I'm still in love with maria bartaromo so...CNBC it is.

I'll never understand the fascination.

[southsider2k5]

Seriously, I love bloombergs content but they have to get a better format, I feel like I'm watching a high school news studio. But, I'm still in love with maria bartaromo so...CNBC it is.

 

Its dry even for someone who has worked in the industry forever. As for the other Ave Maria!

[Rex Kickass]

Its dry even for someone who has worked in the industry forever. As for the other Ave Maria!

 

Bloomberg has more journalists in their stable than the New York Times and the Washington Post combined. Crazy, huh?

 

I almost worked there, the building is amazing on the inside. They are super impressive to me. I love the fact that its all substance, no style.

[Texsox]

I love the fact that its all substance, no style.

 

Kind of like your avatar

[Rex Kickass]

Don't hate on Lazer Liza. Way more fun than Lazer Pink Floyd, ya know.

[bmags]

I'll never understand the fascination.

 

Well, I didn't start to like her until I saw her on Charlie Rose and saw how smart she was. I say smart not like, oh hey, a Woman? But more like she didn't seem to have the same stupid news anchor opinions we hear so much, she seemed to be fed up with everything, like me.

[southsider2k5]

Well, I didn't start to like her until I saw her on Charlie Rose and saw how smart she was. I say smart not like, oh hey, a Woman? But more like she didn't seem to have the same stupid news anchor opinions we hear so much, she seemed to be fed up with everything, like me.

 

She also totally breaks the mold of the weak anchor. She regularly gets up and challenges the people and executives who come onto her program more than any other journalist I see.

[BigSqwert]

I'm referring more to how "hot" people say she is. Reminds of scenarios at work or school where there's no talent to look at but then a new girl arrives who's probably a 6.5 but is treated like a 10.

Edited February 12, 2009 by BigSqwert

[BigSqwert]

Latest update wrt mass transit:

That'll Do, Amtrak Joe: Mass Transit Gets Some More Stimulus Love

By Elana Schor - February 12, 2009, 12:22PM

 

The House's original stimulus bill, as we've reported for several weeks, gave mass transit the short end of the stick in favor of $30 billion for highways with no requirement that repairs be prioritized over new road-building.

 

But according to a confidential summary of the final stimulus deal that we've just been passed (view a PDF of it here), mass transit got some more attention in the end. Amtrak and high-speed rail programs got $9.3 billion, an increase of about $6 billion from the Senate's version of the stimulus.

 

Still, environmentally sustainable transportation didn't completely win the day. A $5.5 billion transit-modernizing grant program eagerly anticipated by environmental advocates, which senators at first wanted to open up to highways, was removed entirely from the final stimulus deal.

 

Congress did agree on $8.4 billion for general public transportation grants, however. Vice President Biden (D-Amtrak), if you had any role in this: thanks.

 

Late Update: N.B. Until legislative language is formally filed on the bill today, there's always the possibility that these numbers could change. What we're bringing you are the freshest details.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Latest update wrt mass transit:

 

Improving the Amtrak network would do so much for jobs and our economy. I think it would be wonderful, and I wish we'd see more mass transit improvement.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

 

See where all of the money is going.