Bush signs bailout bill

[ecoli]

I don't understand why they are not all buying gold. It's the perfect plan. It's tried and true. It's textbook stuff. What is the matter with these people? They're too focused on their failed derivatives and interest rate swaps and options. Nobody remembers the basics or else they were too stoned in that class.

 

I should've bought gold last year. I got a couple thousand dollars from a rich great aunt who died and my parents made me keep it in the bank against my inclination to buy gold. d'oh!

 

You also may be interested to know that Ron Paul has a nice little package of gold investments.

[bascule]

I don't understand why they are not all buying gold.

 

Now's a great time to be selling gold, not buying...

[Realitycheck]

I understand that it has made a really good run and it is a good time to sell, but ... there is just no other place to turn and all they have to do is see the light and BUY GOLD! All of these people bailing out now are all mutual fund participants who really don't have a clue about anything when it comes to investing. If they only knew, it would go so much higher!

 

As of today, I reverse my stance on my opinion about the bailout ... again.

[Dave]

Unfortunately part of the problem is that today, there is apparently an auction to deal with the credit default swaps outstanding from Lehman Brothers, and apparently there is a good chance of that being somewhere in the $400bn mark. If that is the case, then that's going to have a majorly negative impact, and the $700bn bailout is suddenly looking quite small

[bascule]

Well the Dow's down almost 600 points today... to 7882.

 

Eep.

[iNow]

On the plus side, placed neatly into the bailout bill Bush signed last week was a long-sought and widely popular package of renewable energy incentives. They included an eight year extension of the U.S. solar investment tax credit for homeowners and businesses that install solar.

 

It's also good since the package will enable utilities to benefit... ultimately from a 30% federal tax credit. It also erases the $2,000 tax credit cap for residential solar electric installations, which means that property owners now can claim a full 30% credit.

 

 

I'm very happy to see this.

[ParanoiA]

So how does that credit work? If I spend 10,000 on solar for my house, does that mean I can include 3,000 of that in my itemized deductions?

[iNow]

Good question.

[ParanoiA]

I've been ready to fire my gas and electric companies for years now. Especially KC P&L, there's a special place in hell for those bastards. Seriously, that's a good enough reason to believe in god; to enjoy the thought of them writhing in a lake of fire.

[iNow]

You might be able to find more here:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits

[Pangloss]

On the plus side, placed neatly into the bailout bill Bush signed last week was a long-sought and widely popular package of renewable energy incentives. They included an eight year extension of the U.S. solar investment tax credit for homeowners and businesses that install solar.

 

I'm very happy to see this.

 

Well I can understand that and even agree with the sentiment, but it was an earmark, and it had no more business being in there than Adler Planetarium's funding for a new projector. This gets back to my point from the Religulous thread -- in my opinion the ends do not justify the means here, either. We should not be willing to sacrifice good government even at the great altar of planetary salvation.

 

But I have no objection to the measure itself.

[iNow]

How exactly do you think the economy is going to be stimulated if the money is not put in places where it will be spent, or, more appropriate to this measure, where it will encourage lots of spending and production? Despite what the McCain/Palin ticket would have you believe, not all earmarks are bad.

[ParanoiA]

This is not a stimulus bill, it's a bailout bill.

 

By the way, thanks for the link. I'm still checking it out, but it looks like you have to buy top notch stuff to qualify - that's preliminary though, maybe there's some better options further into it.

[iNow]

Don't forget that there are often more state level incentives on top of the federal stuff. I replaced my HVAC unit two years ago with a 17 SEER system, and got $700 back by rebate in a few weeks.

 

I take your point about bailout versus incentive though. At least they're spending on good things instead of spa retreats for executives.

[ParanoiA]

Don't forget that there are often more state level incentives on top of the federal stuff. I replaced my HVAC unit two years ago with a 17 SEER system, and got $700 back by rebate in a few weeks.

 

I take your point about bailout versus incentive though. At least they're spending on good things instead of spa retreats for executives.

 

Hmm, ok I will definitely check into that. And I wonder if spa retreats are tax deductible.

[Pangloss]

How exactly do you think the economy is going to be stimulated if the money is not put in places where it will be spent, or, more appropriate to this measure, where it will encourage lots of spending and production? Despite what the McCain/Palin ticket would have you believe, not all earmarks are bad.

 

In my opinion all earmarks ARE bad, even the ones I agree with, and I really don't think you want Obama/Biden to be seen as supporting them -- this should not be a partisan issue, iNow. I understand why it was necessary, but in my opinion adding two or three hundred BILLION dollars of earmarks just to get this bill passed is one of the most egregious abuses of power in the history of this nation. I shudder to think how many bridges to nowhere are going to mysteriously appear over the horizon in the future. And I don't even want to think about the $15,000 bill coming my way at some point in time, plus interest.

[iNow]

In my opinion all earmarks ARE bad, even the ones I agree with

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's important to note that it IS just an opinion. Here's another opinion which more closely matches my own:

 

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008078282_desmoinesop29.html

Yet the source of this federal funding, "earmarks" to congressional spending bills, is under renewed attack by members of Congress and the news media. Most of this criticism is unwarranted.

 

There have been headline-grabbing abuses involving earmarks, to be sure. But

multimillion-dollar boondoggles — bridges to nowhere and highways for patronage — obscure the significant public good that comes from most congressional earmarking. Without this system of dispensing federal funds to local governments, far fewer projects that provide increased public safety and support economic development in our communities would get done.

 

Our members of Congress get hundreds of requests for federal funds to pay for local projects every year. And for many years, Des Moines City Council members have worked closely with our congressional delegation, whose thoughtful review sifts out all but the most essential projects to bring home the city's fair share of federal tax dollars and benefit people throughout the community.

 

This is what we pay a lot of our federal taxes for

. But if we want the money to come back to us, we have to make these local needs known to our representatives in Congress, who were elected to do what they can for their constituents back home. One very important way they do this is by prioritizing these requests, which already have been prioritized by local lawmakers, and earmarking federal funds to secure those tax dollars for us in this Washington.

 

If we — and they — don't do this, that money simply will go to other cities and counties in other states. The fact is, these earmarks don't abuse the system. We are neither asking for nor taking pork, nor are other Washington cities and counties.

 

Earmarks reflect very legitimate requests, without which we would not get needed federal funding to undertake projects for the public good

.

[Pangloss]

There's no objective truth there, just another opinion. As I said before, some earmarks are for good purposes. The problem is that once you've subverted the system for one reason, it enters the realm of spin and departs the realm of fact. Earmarks are ALWAYS a subversion of the system. Note that even the author in your quote didn't suggest that they're about cutting through red tape, they're about getting idiot lawmakers to agree on something they would not normally agree on. Well here's a thought: If the idiot lawmakers can't see past their noses, THROW THEM OUT AND GET NEW ONES. Don't subvert the system just because you can't get what you want, even if what you want makes perfect sense for everyone.

 

The ends don't justify the means. In fact they just make things worse.

[Realitycheck]

Government should be simple, comprehensive, but simple. It is really ridiculous the amount of bs that goes into all of it. The sky is not going to fall without movie projectors to the 4th power. But this is the world that we live in. I think Uncle Jesse is the only one who would have come close to fixing it, but I don't see anybody doing it.

[ParanoiA]

Anybody who seriously wants to fix it gets no support from you. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. When someone has the balls to advocate fundamental change in attitude and application of government and its structure, you hold some outrageous position against them as if that's their whole platform.

 

Yes, I realize Dr Paul has some ideas that might turn you off, but ANY candidate advocating that level of change in federal government is going to have ideas we don't like; are going to be out of whack with us on SOMETHING for crying out loud. It's not the end of the road, but it certainly is the end of their chances to fix it for you.

 

I would suggest a change in attitude from everyone - stop expecting perfection from human beings. Stop expecting them to agree with you on even 80% of what you believe. Start rewarding honesty. Start rewarding imperfection, and stop rewarding facades.

 

Today's political game has so incrementally crumbled to the ground that we actually give 169,000 dollar a year jobs to people who overtly misrepresent themselves. McCain and Obama are a perfect example of that. They both lie, incessantly. Yet, they are the two main players. How sad. That's on you.

 

Everyone who supports them, supports lying over honesty. And it will never change, until you do.

 

/soapbox

[john5746]

I would suggest a change in attitude from everyone - stop expecting perfection from human beings. Stop expecting them to agree with you on even 80% of what you believe. Start rewarding honesty. Start rewarding imperfection, and stop rewarding facades.

 

Everyone who supports them, supports lying over honesty. And it will never change, until you do.

 

I understand your frustration, but that's what I feel I am doing with Obama. If R Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of winning - he would change or continue to be a loser. If you are actually in the competition to win, you start to play the game - to parse your words, moderate on sensitive issues, overstate your case on winning issues and attack your opponent. If you are just a complainer, then you can just open both barrels and shoot - you get your emo group and they make a bunch of noise - which is your only goal.

 

I know Obama is playing the game, but I also know that anyone who is going to be President has to play the game - to win the election and to rule afterwards. You have to work with people, not run over them with some horse of truth.

[bascule]

Hmmm, massive rebound today... over 900 points

[ecoli]

Hmmm, massive rebound today... over 900 points

yeah that was pretty crazy... but I wouldn't be suprised if it's down another 900 tomorrow. The market's gonna be volatile for a while I expect. This isn't over yet.

[ParanoiA]

I understand your frustration, but that's what I feel I am doing with Obama. If R Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of winning - he would change or continue to be a loser. If you are actually in the competition to win, you start to play the game - to parse your words, moderate on sensitive issues, overstate your case on winning issues and attack your opponent. If you are just a complainer, then you can just open both barrels and shoot - you get your emo group and they make a bunch of noise - which is your only goal.

 

This is a job position, not a sporting event. I don't agree with using the words "winning" and "losing". I don't say I won the job at the door shop. That is perhaps the worst side effect of this pyschological spin - that we turn this into a competition and not a job occupation. Doesn't that just fit so perfectly for the two party seige? To get the people's focus off of honest, statesmanship, and fool them into believing they actually need a better liar than the other guy? We need to change how we think and that starts with the public.

 

I understand what you're saying John, sincerely, and it's age old logic that has failed us repeatedly, and is competing for prime blame for the present situation. When you "accept" and rationalize overt misrepresentation, lying, fraud - then you are as guilty as they. You enable the fraudulent to continue to lead us. That has snowballed over time and now that's the only option we have - liars and theives that have managed to trick us, using our natural weakness to compete, into choosing the least offensive liar.

 

More importantly, how else will it ever stop if you keep rationalizing the status quo? Yes, if you vote for some guy that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, then that's one more vote for the guy you don't like. But that's near sighted, and not very thoughtful for a wise, reasoned citizen; those votes will increase exponentially as people take notice. Shouldn't we be looking to the future? Isn't that how we get ourselves into all of this economic and international trouble? Isn't that how we racked up this debt - consistently focused on today, and never on tomorrow?

 

Isn't that a talking point for our children? Don't we teach them that they must think ahead, of the future, and that the failure to do so will doom them to failure?

[Mr Skeptic]

This is a job position, not a sporting event. I don't agree with using the words "winning" and "losing". I don't say I won the job at the door shop. That is perhaps the worst side effect of this pyschological spin - that we turn this into a competition and not a job occupation. Doesn't that just fit so perfectly for the two party seige? To get the people's focus off of honest, statesmanship, and fool them into believing they actually need a better liar than the other guy? We need to change how we think and that starts with the public.

 

I understand what you're saying John, sincerely, and it's age old logic that has failed us repeatedly, and is competing for prime blame for the present situation. When you "accept" and rationalize overt misrepresentation, lying, fraud - then you are as guilty as they. You enable the fraudulent to continue to lead us. That has snowballed over time and now that's the only option we have - liars and theives that have managed to trick us, using our natural weakness to compete, into choosing the least offensive liar.

 

More importantly, how else will it ever stop if you keep rationalizing the status quo? Yes, if you vote for some guy that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, then that's one more vote for the guy you don't like. But that's near sighted, and not very thoughtful for a wise, reasoned citizen; those votes will increase exponentially as people take notice. Shouldn't we be looking to the future? Isn't that how we get ourselves into all of this economic and international trouble? Isn't that how we racked up this debt - consistently focused on today, and never on tomorrow?

 

Isn't that a talking point for our children? Don't we teach them that they must think ahead, of the future, and that the failure to do so will doom them to failure?

 

Well said! I wish everyone saw this issue like you. Unfortunately, it has always been to a politician's advantage to deceive so as to appear the one people agree with. The sad fact is that if we want the winning politicians to change, we need to choose them. Even and especially when they are willing to tell Republicans that they are pro-choice and Democrats that they don't like social spending. Instead we choose liars who will tell us what we want to hear.

 

But now is the modern age. We can record every public statement a politician has made, and then go back and check up on them. When they pretend they are in favor of a different position for different groups, we should call them on it. If there isn't a website, there should be one.