850 to 1 trillion in stimulus headed our way in less than a month - Page 2

sarawind · #**101** 01-28-2009, 03:27 PM

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that only $26 billion of the $355 billion in the stimulus bill would be spent this year, and only $110 billion by the end of 2010. But that is not the real problem with infrastructure spending as a stimulus strategy. The bigger problem is that the government finances the spending by first borrowing the funding from the private sector, taking out of the economy what it later puts in, for no net gain overall. In the process, there is no change in the basic incentives governing economic activity, which do have the power to revive growth. And after the government make-work project ends, then what? Steve Entin best explained the fundamental economics of the problem yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, saying that to end a recession:

Ultimately, labor and capital must shift from declining industries and areas to expanding ones -- but intercepting people as they make the shifts and parking them in government projects for a year just delays the adjustment. And the debt and future taxes raised in the process become permanent burdens that shrink private output and income forever after.

What we want is private sector jobs privately financed in a booming economy, not make-work jobs financed by the public sector that end when the government gravy train ends. Cuts in corporate tax rates, and in the tax rates on capital. Deregulation to allow the market to produce oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and more electricity, providing a low cost reliable energy supply for the rest of the economy, and a booming energy industry. A new strict price rule to guide monetary policy, focusing it only on maintaining stable prices rather than discretionary policy to guide the economy, which has only led to stock market and housing bubbles causing the current chaos. And restrained government spending to reduce government burdens on the economy.

Now what we have is not only a stimulus bill that will not work. What we have is a fraudulent bill that is not even focused on stimulus at all, but on runaway spending for liberal, big government spending programs, meaning more welfare, overgrown bureaucracy, pork, political payoffs, and waste.

traderx · #**102** 01-28-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarawind

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that only $26 billion of the $355 billion in the stimulus bill would be spent this year, and only $110 billion by the end of 2010. But that is not the real problem with infrastructure spending as a stimulus strategy. The bigger problem is that the government finances the spending by first borrowing the funding from the private sector, taking out of the economy what it later puts in, for no net gain overall. In the process, there is no change in the basic incentives governing economic activity, which do have the power to revive growth. And after the government make-work project ends, then what? Steve Entin best explained the fundamental economics of the problem yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, saying that to end a recession:

Ultimately, labor and capital must shift from declining industries and areas to expanding ones -- but intercepting people as they make the shifts and parking them in government projects for a year just delays the adjustment. And the debt and future taxes raised in the process become permanent burdens that shrink private output and income forever after.

What we want is private sector jobs privately financed in a booming economy, not make-work jobs financed by the public sector that end when the government gravy train ends. Cuts in corporate tax rates, and in the tax rates on capital. Deregulation to allow the market to produce oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and more electricity, providing a low cost reliable energy supply for the rest of the economy, and a booming energy industry. A new strict price rule to guide monetary policy, focusing it only on maintaining stable prices rather than discretionary policy to guide the economy, which has only led to stock market and housing bubbles causing the current chaos. And restrained government spending to reduce government burdens on the economy.

Now what we have is not only a stimulus bill that will not work. What we have is a fraudulent bill that is not even focused on stimulus at all, but on runaway spending for liberal, big government spending programs, meaning more welfare, overgrown bureaucracy, pork, political payoffs, and waste.

...thereby creating more voters for Democratic candidates.

It is a no lose proposition for the Dems. If the stimulus package works, or if the economy recovers in spite of the ill effects of the stimulus package, the Dems will claim credit. If it fails and we go down the tubes, Hoover...I mean Bush will get the blame.

sarawind · #**103** 01-28-2009, 06:19 PM

History of Government Sponsored Enterprises

Congressional Democrats Bankrupted the Nation

By JB Williams Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Even though the US congress has been mucking up the banking industry since 1916, few Americans are familiar with GSE’s, (Government Sponsored Enterprises). As a result, the people have hired the same people who destroyed the US economy to begin with, to fix the US economy. Those people are now attempting to save the nation from complete economic collapse via the same failed economic policies that caused the crisis…

History repeats for benefit of those who have not yet learned the lesson

Although the US Constitution affords the federal government no such power whatsoever to engage taxpayer revenue in banking or any other economic enterprise, Congress has been recklessly meddling in private enterprise for almost one hundred years now, with a devastating track record of unparalleled failure.

The 2008-2009 collapse of the US banking system is not the result of failed free market mechanics, but rather a clear demonstration of just how unqualified the federal government is to regulate industry and private enterprise. It is not the result of the last eight years, but rather the last eighty years or more… It was not an accident, but instead a natural end to a bad idea.

The Beginning

The 64th US Congress created the first federal GSE in 1916, with the establishment of the Farm Credit System. Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate at the time and Democrat Woodrow Wilson was president.

The stated objective was to “provide sound and dependable credit to American farmers, ranchers, producers or harvesters of aquatic products, their cooperatives, and farm-related businesses. - We do this by making appropriately structured loans to qualified individuals and businesses at competitive rates and providing financial services and advice to those persons and businesses.”

A noble objective, but the key word in this statement is the word “qualified.” They were not talking about “credit worthy” qualifications, or a borrower’s ability to repay, but rather qualifications tied to a borrower’s “need.”

“Farm Credit institutions are chartered by the federal government and must operate within limits established by the Farm Credit Act.”

As is always the case, when the fed offers its helping hand, there are always strings attached. Five member Farm Credit Banks still exist today, AgFirst, AgriBank, CoBank, Farm Credit Bank of Texas, U.S. AgBank, and combined, they have outstanding loans of $158 billion as of September 2008.

The Federal Farm Credit program marks Americas first government venture into the banking business and while some good was done through this program over the years, we are about to see how this program laid the foundation for what would become the greatest economic calamity in world history.

The Middle

Based on the model of the Farm Credit System, the 72nd Congress entered the home mortgage business in 1932, with the establishment of the Federal Home Loan Banks. At the time, Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats controlled the House, Republican Herbert Hoover was president.

Historians have recorded that “Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement (a major component of the Progressive Era), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem. That position was challenged by the Stock market crash of 1929 that took place less than 8 months after Hoover’s taking office, and the Great Depression that followed it, which gained momentum in 1930. Hoover tried to combat the Depression with volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term. The consensus among historians is that Hoover’s defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by failure to end the downward spiral into deep Depression.” [Wikipedia]

Of course, Hoover was succeeded by FDR and his New Deal, which thrust the federal government headlong into what has become decades of ill-fated attempts to use the weight and power of the government to remedy an endless stream of socio-economic challenges.

[Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems, through various agencies, such as the Works Project Administration, National Recovery Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Social Security system and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). ]

In other words, he took the same fundamental approach that Democrats are trying again. If FDR’s New Deal had fully succeeded, the nation would not find itself in the condition it is in today. Some lessons are hard to learn… or are they?

Like today, the nation was interested in an economic “quick fix” following the crash of ’29 - and like Barack Obama today; FDR came to power by promising that “quick fix.”

Yet, despite all of FDR’s efforts to spend the nation out of depression, the Great Depression did not end until WWII. Still, his aggressive use of the federal government created a New Deal Coalition which still dominates the Democratic Party today and that is FDR’s real legacy.

The fundamental ideological difference between the American right and the American left is that
the right looks at history and sees how the federal government has become proficient at “wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - A mistake that Thomas Jefferson had carefully warned the nation against.

The left looks at history and sees a means by which to increase their own political power. As Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel put it, ”You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

The Beginning of the End

In 1938, Democrats once again controlled both houses of congress during FDR’s second term. The Democrat controlled 75th Congress launched a new federal enterprise, the Federal Home Mortgage Association, known today as Fannie Mae.

The corporation’s stated purpose was to “purchase” and “securitize mortgages” in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers. To provide government backed securities for sale to investors on the open market.

But at the root of the program was again, this word “qualified” borrowers, which did not mean borrowers able to demonstrate the ability to repay the loans, but rather as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families, people who would otherwise not qualify for a mortgage.

From the very beginning, Democrats had designed a program doomed to failure. Loans would be made to people we knew would someday, be unable to pay those loans. The government backed those loans in order to attract investors to securities that were collateralized by bad loans.

In 1977, with Democrat Jimmy Carter in the White House and Democrats once again controlling both houses of congress, The Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law. The law was designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to delve even deeper into financial abyss, to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, namely low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The law was designed to force lenders to make bad loans to otherwise unqualified borrowers.

Democrat Bill Clinton later reinforced the Act, as the Democrat Black Caucus expanded its enforcement at Fannie and Freddie and low-income Community Organizations like ACORN, soon perfected the art of exploiting the programs.

The End

In April 2001, before the events of 9/11 and just after entering the White House, President Bush began signaling warnings to members of congress that both Fannie and Freddie were headed into deep treacherous waters which could cause “strong repercussions in financial markets.”

In early 2003, the Bush White House upgraded its warnings to “a systemic risk that could extend well beyond just the housing markets.”

On September 10, 2003, Bush Treasury Secretary John Snow testified in congress that something had to be done to confront the growing storm at Fannie and Freddie. Democrat Barney Frank, now Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, reacted by saying “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are NOT in a crisis...” completely rejecting Bush administration calls for reform.

Frank went on to say that Fannie and Freddie should do even more to get low-income families into homes. “The more people, in my opinion, exaggerate the threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of more serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem, the federal government doesn’t bail them out, but the more pressure there is there, then the less, I think we see, in affordable housing.” Said Democrat Frank

Congressional Democrats then killed the 2003 bill put forth by Republicans, intended to head off financial crisis.

In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan went before congress to sound an even louder warning concerning the soundness of the Government Sponsored Enterprises headed for disaster, testifying that, “Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.”

Again, Democrats reacted by ignoring the warnings and blocking all legislative efforts to confront the economic tsunami now raging towards land.

In May 2006, Republican Senator John McCain sponsored legislation aimed at immediately reforming Fannie and Freddie, and once again, Democrats led by New York Senator Charles Schumer, blocked the Republican effort to avoid impending financial calamity. The bill failed by a strict party line vote, in which every Senate Democrat voted against reforming the GSE’s.

Then Freshman Senator Barack Obama, did not comment on the bill or the impending disaster...

In 2007 and 2008, several more Republican efforts to address the coming failure of Fannie and Freddie were put forth, but Democrats regained full control of both the Senate and the House in 2006, and they continued to deny any impending financial crisis.

On September 7, 2008 Fannie and Freddie were placed into conservatorship, bankruptcy.

Since then, a trillion US taxpayer dollars have been poured into both in a failed effort to save them from extinction. Another trillion in federal “bailout” funds is proposed by House Democrats today, much of it directed to special interest government [welfare state] growth instead of the coming economic melt down.

In November of 2008, Americans elected the same people responsible for the entire financial crisis, currently sending financial quakes around the globe, into full unbridled power of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office.

What’s their remedy?

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Obama Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel - More of the same old leftist waste of taxpayer resources, and nothing more.

The biggest federal grab of private industry and assets is underway in Washington DC. Trillions in deficit spending and new taxpayer debt is being forced down the throats of the very Republicans who tried for eight years to head off impending disaster, and every American who must now tighten their belt once again, to pay for the disastrous policy decisions of the Washington leftist elite.

If that’s not complete insanity, I don’t know what is…

Call your congress representatives TODAY and tell them NO MORE waste of taxpayer assets in their quest for unbridled political power!

The current leftist “bailout” plan is designed to “stimulate” government growth and Democrat power, not the US economy. Stop it now!

(1) Reader Feedback | Click here to get Canada Free Press in your email

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB Williams’ website is jb-williams.com/

JB Williams can be reached at: JB_Williams@comcast.net

Older articles by JB Williams

JB Williams most recent columns

Printed from: Congressional Democrats Bankrupted the Nation

30ashopper · #**104** 01-28-2009, 07:11 PM

The House voted on this tonight - it passed. But an important note, not one single Republican voted for it. Not a single one. There's hope for the future in that! Not a single one! Man I hope they keep this up!

sarawind · #**105** 01-28-2009, 07:22 PM

Sure hope the Senate Republicans along with some Democrats vote against this dreadful package. So proud of our congressmen and women in the House. Call or email them to express gratitude.

TooFarTampa · #**106** 01-28-2009, 07:27 PM

Sarawind, Kurt's forum rules are that articles should not be posted in their entirety (though I know sometimes people do it) because of copyright issues. Articles of such exceptional length are hard to wade through, anyway -- just quote a few graphs with the highlights and provide a link. Thanks.

sarawind · #**107** 01-28-2009, 07:41 PM

Was not aware of rule. Glad you told me. I've read the rules and can not find this one. Where is it located? Thanks for the info. Hope you 'waded through' article as it's very good.

TooFarTampa · #**108** 01-28-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarawind

Was not aware of rule. Glad you told me. Thanks! Hope you 'waded through' article as
it's very good.

Well, I'm pretty suspicious of anything that tries to blame most of the recent problems on Fannie and Freddie. Because we all know that in Florida, the problems in the coastal markets are not really due to the actions of low-income families.

There are many culprits, but the lack of regulation of credit default swaps (which had bipartisan support) seems to be the root cause of the collapse of the investment banks.

sarawind · #**109** 01-28-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

Well, I'm pretty suspicious of anything that tries to blame most of the recent problems on Fannie and Freddie. Because we all know that in Florida, the problems in the coastal markets are not really due to the actions of low-income families.

There are many culprits, but the lack of regulation of credit default swaps (which had bipartisan support) seems to be the root cause of the collapse of the investment banks.

You may be right about coastal markets but what percentage is that in all of the USA? The facts about Fannie and Freddie are stubborn things.

traderx · #**110** 01-28-2009, 08:27 PM

Anna Schwartz blames it squarely on Greenspan. I tell you, we would be better off without the Fed, the SEC, FCC, FTC - all the alphabet agencies. They do more harm than good.

BTW, Ms. Schwartz has worked for the Nationall Bureau of Economic Research for 67 years. Wonder what her FICO score is?

Quote:

The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system.

"The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.

"They need to speak frankly to the market and acknowledge how bad the problems are, and acknowledge their own failures in letting this happen. This is what is needed to restore confidence," she told The Sunday Telegraph.

"There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for," she says.

Anna Schwartz blames Fed for sub-prime crisis - Telegraph

TooFarTampa · #**111** 01-28-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarawind

You may be right about coastal markets but what percentage is that in all of the USA? The facts about Fannie and Freddie are stubborn things.

"Stubborn" could also describe anyone trying to blame this whole debacle on one series of actions or one party alone. The problems are now on many fronts and there are multitudes to blame here -- pretty much anyone who ever ignored all the good ol economic rules of thumb that, it turns out, are there for a reason. It's a collective problem, I've participated from time to time to some degree, I dare say most of us have. Except maybe SHELLY.

TooFarTampa · #**112** 01-28-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traderx

Anna Schwartz blames it squarely on Greenspan. I tell you, we would be better off without the Fed, the SEC, FCC, FTC - all the alphabet agencies. They do more harm than good.

BTW, Ms. Schwartz has worked for the Nationall Bureau of Economic Research for 67 years. Wonder what her FICO score is?

Anna Schwartz blames Fed for sub-prime crisis - Telegraph

Now that is someone worth listening to.

Too old to posture, old enough to actually remember the Great Depression, and brilliant enough to have figured it out!

SWGB · #**113** 01-29-2009, 01:15 AM

SallieMae as a GSE was a wonderful program that was self sufficient. When it was allowed to go private it has slowly imploded. Sallie Mae is a perfect example of a government sponsored enterprise going to crap at the fault of the private sector not government.

traderx · #**114** 01-29-2009, 02:43 PM

Recovery from the Great Depression was hampered by the US and Euro countries turning inward and erecting walls around themselves. Now comes the stimulus package with a "Buy American" provision. This is not a good sign. If we turn inward, so will other countries. Why is it that mankind has so much difficulty in learning from history? (<--- rhetorical)

Quote:

The House-approved plan's "Buy American" provision generally prohibits the purchase of foreign iron and steel for any infrastructure project in the bill.
The European Union's trade commissioner, Catherine Ashton, pre-emptively voiced concern about the US measure.
"We are looking into the situation. ... Before we have the final text ... it would be premature to take a stance on it," Ashton's spokesman, Peter Power, said in Brussels.
"However, the one thing we can be absolutely certain about, is if a bill is passed which prohibits the sale or purchase of European goods on American territory, that is something we will not stand idly by and ignore," he said.
Canada's government said it is concerned about US protectionism in the economic stimulus and its diplomats were lobbying US makers against the "Buy American" drive.
"We're always concerned when there are protectionist pressures in the United States," Industry Minister Tony Clement told public broadcaster CBC.
"At the same time the United States has treaty obligations," he said, citing US membership in the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
"And we expect the United States to live up to its treaty obligations of open and fair trade."
About 40 percent of Canadian steel is sold in the United States and Canada imports steel from its southern neighbor.
Clement said Canadian diplomats have been lobbying US lawmakers "to try to persuade them to take that clause out or soften it or at least not make it any tougher in the days ahead."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper also plans to bring up the controversial clause in talks with Obama when he visits Ottawa on February 19, he said.
The "Buy American" provision bars spending on any infrastructure project "unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States."

'Buy American' stimulus plan riles trade partners - Yahoo! News

BeachSiO2 · #**115** 01-29-2009, 03:56 PM

The US Association of General Contractors has heartburn with the issue also. One thing cited is the fact this could delay the implementation of stimulus funding due to lack of available raw materials for construction projects. I hope its not a case of cutting off our nose....

Andy A. · #**116** 01-29-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

Sarawind, Kurt's forum rules are that articles should not be posted in their entirety (though I know sometimes people do it) because of copyright issues. Articles of such exceptional length are hard to wade through, anyway -- just quote a few graphs with the highlights and provide a link. Thanks.

TFT, while I understand what you are saying, SW, is by far not the first to post an article of this length in its entirety. What's more, it is a wonderful synopsis of our government's envolvement in our financial dealings throughout history. It is actual history and not the revisionist crap I am so use to seeing. How do I know its revisionist crap in so many instances? Because I lived most of it and remember it. Suffice it to say I, for one, am glad Sarawind saw fit to post all of it. I hate "links" and much prefer to have posters express their own thoughts, either "in person" or through items they deem good enough for all to read and consider. Just my thoughts.

Here4Good · #**117** 01-29-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traderx

Anna Schwartz blames it squarely on Greenspan. I tell you, we would be better off without the Fed, the SEC, FCC, FTC - all the alphabet agencies. They do more harm than good.

BTW, Ms. Schwartz has worked for the Nationall Bureau of Economic Research for 67 years. Wonder what her FICO score is?

Anna Schwartz blames Fed for sub-prime crisis - Telegraph

She said this a year ago, and we now have Fed rates of zero. Isn't that the "easing" she's talking about? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one)

traderx · #**118** 01-29-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

She said this a year ago, and we now have Fed rates of zero. Isn't that the "easing" she's talking about? (This is an honest question, not a rhetorical one)

Schwartz's criticism of Greenspan is that he was too accommodative with respect to the discount rate. He held it at one percent for a while and according to Schwartz, it invited mischief.

Nobel Krugman along with the AP likes to repeat that the Fed's hands are tied given that the discount rate is zero but this mantra ignores the other tools available to the Fed. The Fed can influence banking through changes in fractional reserve policy. It can inject liquidity, which it is currently doing to stave off deflation. It can buy bonds, etc.

Schwartz does not believe that we are in another thirties-style Great Depression but then, nobody in 1930 thought we were either. I would be interested in her opinion today. I just hope that the Fed heeds the lessons of the GD - I believe he is - as well as the President - I don't believe he is.

SWGB · #**119** 01-29-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

TFT, while I understand what you are saying, SW, is by far not the first to post an article of this length in its entirety. What's more, it is a wonderful synopsis of our government's envolvement in our financial dealings throughout history. It is actual history and not the revisionist crap I am so use to seeing. How do I know its revisionist crap in so many instances? Because I lived most of it and remember it. Suffice it to say I, for one, am glad Sarawind saw fit to post all of it. I hate "links" and much prefer to have posters express their own thoughts, either "in person" or through items they deem good enough for all to read and consider. Just my thoughts.

Andy, TFT has the word Moderator under her name for a reason.

30ashopper · #**120** 01-30-2009, 11:03 AM

Fun Friday humor!

idlewind · #**121** 01-30-2009, 11:13 AM

Great toon 30A!

idlewind · #**122** 01-30-2009, 12:15 PM

Here is a good story on some of the problems with the proposed stimulus bill:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/30...titlement-mob/

amp in srb · #**123** 01-31-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Here is a good story on some of the problems with the proposed stimulus bill:

Michelle Malkin » Stimulus slush fund for the housing entitlement mob

How is that a "good" article? Let alone about the stimulus bill. Partisan politics aside. That's a load.

amp in srb · #**124** 01-31-2009, 12:27 AM

Oh, i'm sorry you might be worried that the people who have been getting the shaft are taking their **** back. I get it.

30ashopper · #**125** 02-04-2009, 11:42 AM

It appears both Dems and Repubs in the Senate are waking up to the fact that a big chunk of this non-stimulating stimulus needs a rewrite. Good news.

washingtonpost.com

Quote:

The Senate's first vote on a stimulus amendment, a failed effort yesterday to add more infrastructure spending to the package, signaled the change in course. For weeks, the measure has grown to meet a worsening economic crisis with the largest possible infusion of government cash. Despite warnings of dire consequences if Congress does not act boldly, Republicans have become resolute in their opposition to what they view as runaway and unnecessary spending in the legislation. And as the total in the Senate version climbs to $900 billion, unease also is stirring among moderate Democrats.

Quote:

To remove obstacles from the measure's path, Reid said numerous items could fall by the wayside. "The president, the Democratic leaders, the Republican leaders certainly have every intention of moving forward to getting everything out of the bill that causes heartburn to a significant number of senators," he told reporters yesterday.

What Senate leaders cannot predict is which provisions will stay in and which will fall out. It also remains unclear whether Democrats are willing to tamper with measures that are considered high priorities for Obama, but that tackle longer-term challenges such as health-care reform and alternative energy development, rather than providing the quick jolt of expanded unemployment and food-stamp benefits and individual tax relief.

The most ambitious effort to cut the bill is being led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), moderates in their parties who share a dislike of the current version. Collins is scheduled to visit Obama at the White House this afternoon. "I'm going to go to him with a list" of suggested deletions, she said.

Nelson said he and Collins have agreed to "tens of billions" in cuts, although he said he is skeptical that the effort will reach Collins's target of $200 billion in reductions. The pair has counted up to 20 allies in their effort, with more Democrats than Republicans at this point.

6thGen · #**126** 02-04-2009, 12:22 PM

The first thing they need to do is get rid of the “Buy American” nonsense. The economy is in bad enough shape as it is, but the trade war that would follow would spread unemployment from low skilled workers and industries affected such as construction and financials to every industry and prolong and deepen this depression. If they want to add something like that, spend on infrastructure where you involve one of the industries hit and employ local workforces. The Buy American clause would do far, far more damage than any of the stupid earmarks that the GOP is wringing their hands over. Unfortunately, since we have Collins and Nelson leading the modification team, it will be filled with a few more cuts and much more populism, which probably includes some form of the aforementioned clause. The cap on exec salary is one good example of Obama’s wont to poorly reasoned populism.

Also wouldn’t hurt to remind Messrs. Gates and Buffett that charity starts at home.

30ashopper · #**127** 02-05-2009, 11:47 AM

15K incentive to buy stuff you can't afford... check!

Quote:

The tax break for homebuyers, which the Senate approved by voice vote without opposition, was the second amendment in two days intended to encourage consumers to make major purchases. On Tuesday, the Senate approved a tax incentive for car buyers, sponsored by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, that would allow the deduction of sales tax and loan interest on purchases made this year.

But while both of those incentives were applauded by lawmakers who said that the bill should quickly induce consumer spending, some economists said they were short-sighted and lacked the forward-thinking approach Mr. Obama has demanded.

Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, said that homebuyers would have trouble accessing loans because of the continued tightness in the credit markets and that the car buyer incentive fell short by not focusing on fuel-efficient vehicles, and that the money might be better directed at mass transit.

“They are also structurally unsound,” Mr. Posen said of the two provisions, “reinforcing the attempts of industries that are too large — housing construction, automobile production — to survive based on government distortions.”

He called them both “terrible, pandering ideas.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us...er=rss&emc=rss

scooterbug44 · #**128** 02-05-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

The first thing they need to do is get rid of the “Buy American” nonsense. The economy is in bad enough shape as it is, but the trade war that would follow would spread unemployment from low skilled workers and industries affected such as construction and financials to every industry and prolong and deepen this depression. If they want to add something like that, spend on infrastructure where you involve one of the industries hit and employ local workforces. The Buy American clause would do far, far more damage than any of the stupid earmarks that the GOP is wringing their hands over. Unfortunately, since we have Collins and Nelson leading the modification team, it will be filled with a few more cuts and much more populism, which probably includes some form of the aforementioned clause. The cap on exec salary is one good example of Obama’s wont to poorly reasoned populism.

Also wouldn’t hurt to remind Messrs. Gates and Buffett that charity starts at home.

The EU is actually pretty pissed right now because one of Bush's last acts was to pass a massive tax increase on many items imported from the EU in retaliation for them restricting the importation of hormone fed beef.

Since more than $15 BILLION of the bailout money was used for bonuses for people who did such a good job their company had to be bailed out, I have no problem w/ limiting their pay until they pay us back. That isn't populism - that's common sense and an incentive.

Since I believe the Gates foundation paid for some of the computers at the Walton Co. library, I don't think they need to be "reminded" that charity begins at home.

6thGen · #**129** 02-05-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

The EU is actually pretty pissed right now because one of Bush's last acts was to pass a massive tax increase on many items imported from the EU in retaliation for them restricting the importation of hormone fed beef.

Since more than $15 BILLION of the bailout money was used for bonuses for people who did such a good job their company had to be bailed out, I have no problem w/ limiting their pay until they pay us back. That isn't populism - that's common sense and an incentive.

Since I believe the Gates foundation paid for some of the computers at the Walton Co. library, I don't think they need to be "reminded" that charity begins at home.

You won't see me defending the tarriff.

All of the companies that receive bailout money are not being run by those that were running the companies a few years ago. Further, the current plan calls for a cap at $500,000 salary, and any bonus has to come in deferred stock options not vested until the bailout money is repaid. Oh, and it's on the top 10 execs, and the next 25 are subject to federally imposed less. Although, I'm sure somewhere out there, there is a team of white knights that will come in for significantly less than market, much of which is deferred, and put up with constant grandstanding and manipulation from a group of politicians that make your own predecessors look like J.P. Morgan (the man, not the investment bank). Go ahead and throw in one of those rolling eyes smiley faces that you believe punctuates the perfect blend of wit, insight and sarcasm right.................here.

SWGB · #**130** 02-05-2009, 03:05 PM

Hmm, $500,000 a year to bring a company back from the brink and pay off loans. I'm sure no board of directors would ever reward that after the fact. No smiley needed, I'm sure you can see that sarcasm dripping from my post.

6thGen · #**131** 02-05-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Hmm, $500,000 a year to bring a company back from the brink and pay off loans. I'm sure no board of directors would ever reward that after the fact. No smiley needed, I'm sure you can see that sarcasm dripping from my post.

Thanks for making my point. The board of directors should be allowed to make the decision. Not Joe Biden.

TooFarTampa · #**132** 02-05-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

Thanks for making my point. The board of directors should be allowed to make the decision. Not Joe Biden.

The board also can decide whether or not to take the bailout money, correct?

SWGB · #**133** 02-05-2009, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

Thanks for making my point. The board of directors should be allowed to make the decision. Not Joe Biden.

So in your opinion if a company sells itself to the US Government the purchaser has no say in the operation of the company they just bought? I just don't see where you aren't even a little miffed that while your investments drop like a rock the same people who are supposed to safe guard them are getting bonuses from your tax dollars.

6thGen · #**134** 02-05-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

The board also can decide whether or not to take the bailout money, correct?

Yep. They can refuse the money and either be forced into an arranged marriage or fail, or take the money and the potential millstone around their neck that comes with it. Woo!

6thGen · #**135** 02-05-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

So in your opinion if a company sells itself to the US Government the purchaser has no say in the operation of the company they just bought? I just don't see where you aren't even a little miffed that while your investments drop like a rock the same people who are supposed to safe guard them are getting bonuses from your tax dollars.

It's a loan from the government, it's not really ownership.

TooFarTampa · #**136** 02-05-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

Yep. They can refuse the money and either be forced into an arranged marriage or fail, or take the money and the potential millstone around their neck that comes with it. Woo!

Sorry, hard to feel bad about this. In general the well-run companies do not need a bailout. There are badly run companies that do not need a bailout. Bailout money should have strings attached, otherwise the banks will spend it on Super Bowl marketing (true!). If Obama is effective, he gets reelected, if the CEOs are effective, they get a raise. Fair enough.

BeachSiO2 · #**137** 02-05-2009, 05:49 PM

Its looking more like the gauntlet is in hand, and the Dems are preparing to throw it down via the vote in the Senate. This is on the heels of more citizens losing faith every day in the Congress to do the right thing.

The biggest question yet to be seen is whether or not we will be north or south of 1,000,000,000,000 (that's 12 zeroes). As of yesterday, it exceeded 900,000,000,000 but the amendments are continuing to be presented and voted on tonight. I would still take the under but it's going to biggggg!

I believe there is going to be somewhere on the order of 3,000,000,000,000 dollars appropriated in discretionary programs in the FY 2009 time period, and that does not include military or programs like SS.

WOW!

6thGen · #**138** 02-05-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

Sorry, hard to feel bad about this. In general the well-run companies do not need a bailout. There are badly run companies that do not need a bailout. Bailout money should have strings attached, otherwise the banks will spend it on Super Bowl marketing (true!). If Obama is effective, he gets reelected, if the CEOs are effective, they get a raise. Fair enough.

The problem with your argument is you are making it by looking in the rearview mirror. The bottom line is that caps on executive compensation subsidizes mediocrity. Capping one industry's executive compensation drives out, or defers from entering the most able executives. The talent will move to other industries, distorting the talent gap and retarding the recovery of the financial industry (or auto, take your pick). It's a populist "Stick it to those fat cats" move that Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs will hail as brillliant.

TooFarTampa · #**139** 02-05-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

The problem with your argument is you are making it by looking in the rearview mirror. The bottom line is that caps on executive compensation subsidizes mediocrity. Capping one industry's executive compensation drives out, or defers from entering the most able executives. The talent will move to other industries, distorting the talent gap and retarding the recovery of the financial industry (or auto, take your pick). It's a populist "Stick it to those fat cats" move that Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs will hail as brillliant.

You are leaving out the facts that this would apply to a relatively small number of troubled companies (by no means an entire industry), and that additional compensation can come in the form of stock options or grants that cannot be sold until the bailout money is repaid. This rewards long-term performance -- something that is certainly needed on Wall Street.

The best CEOs also have egos the size of Manhattan. You think there aren't people who believe themselves to be up to the task? Think about the book deals and rock star status for those who succeed!

6thGen · #**140** 02-05-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

You are leaving out the facts that this would apply to a relatively small number of troubled companies (by no means an entire industry), and that additional compensation can come in the form of stock options that cannot be sold until the bailout money is repaid. This rewards long-term performance -- something that is certainly needed on Wall Street.

A relatively small number of troubled companies? Did you type that with a straight face? This is a bailout for the US auto industry and the US financial industry.

Interactive Graphic - Participants in Government Investment Plan

Stock options are proven to reward short term performance, not long term performance. I can dig up the research on it but it's pretty easily deduced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

The best CEOs also have egos the size of Manhattan. You think there aren't people who believe themselves to be up to the task? Think about the book deals and rock star status for those who succeed!

You're right. Compensation doesn't matter. Just give Time's Man of the Year to the first to pay back the loan.

6thGen · #**141** 02-05-2009, 06:55 PM

I forgot to address the SuperBowl marketing gotcha comment. They spent money where they were guaranteed 95 million people taking bathroom breaks during the game itself so they could watch the commercials and you think that's a bad thing?

TooFarTampa · #**142** 02-05-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

A relatively small number of troubled companies? Did you type that with a straight face? This is a bailout for the US auto industry and the US financial industry.

Interactive Graphic - Participants in Government Investment Plan

Stock options are proven to reward short term performance, not long term performance. I can dig up the research on it but it's pretty easily deduced.

You're right. Compensation doesn't matter. Just give Time's Man of the Year to the first to pay back the loan.

It is a relatively small number. It is not everyone getting money in the bailout. It is those with exceptional monetary requests. From the WSJ:

Quote:

Among the new restrictions being considered is a $500,000 cap on salaries for executives at companies that receive a substantial amount of government aid, according to a person familiar with the matter. Executives would be able to get additional compensation in the form of restricted stock or other compensation that is tied to the long-term health of the company.

How stock options and restricted stock awards to CEOs affect companies in normal times is irrelevant. In this case, if the CEO wants the stock awards he or she has to turn the company around. Ego, carrot, stick.

Granted, $500K a year is not enough to keep up a Park Avenue apartment and lifestyle, but I'm pretty sure it works fine for Detroit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

I forgot to address the SuperBowl marketing gotcha comment. They spent money where they were guaranteed 95 million people taking bathroom breaks during the game itself so they could watch the commercials and you think that's a bad thing?

Not a 'gotcha' comment. I'm not talking about commercials, but other more dubious forms of corporate sponsorships that may or may not be effective in drumming up business. Especially if they aren't actually lending.

Bank of America spent millions to sponsor the NFL Experience at the Super Bowl. In normal times this may be a good thing for most companies. But the resulting very bad PR from this very public decision is more than likely going to hurt them because perception matters. It was a dumb move.

Notes from the Super Bowl:

ABC News: Bailed Out Bank of America Sponsors Super Bowl Fun Fest

Notes from the bowl games:

The Bailout Bowl: Big-Game Sponsors Scored Billions - WSJ.com

SWGB · #**143** 02-05-2009, 09:36 PM

My point is that if you allow bailed out banks to continue to award huge salaries and bonuses to executives they have no incentive to fix the problem. If they can continue to make the same asinine decisions and it doesn't affect their pay then they'll be back at the bailout trough in a year. Who would ever quit that job or attempt to do something different or right?

30ashopper · #**144** 02-05-2009, 09:57 PM

The banks borrowed the money from the the FED. They are paying interest on the loan. It's in thier best interests to stay in business, which may include keeping key talent on board. I'm amazed at how many people on here seem to think they know how to run a multi-national bank, my guess is if you had the job it wouldn't be as simply as you all think. Obama seems to think he has the right to lend money and them stipulate how it's spent. I'm sorry but that's not how it works. If you're not interested in funding a business, don't, but once you do, let the borrower do their thing. They know more about their business than you do.

SWGB · #**145** 02-05-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

The banks borrowed the money from the the FED. They are paying interest on the loan. It's in thier best interests to stay in business, which may include keeping key talent on board. I'm amazed at how many people on here seem to think they know how to run a multi-national bank, my guess is if you had the job it wouldn't be as simply as you all think. Obama seems to think he has the right to lend money and them stipulate how it's spent. I'm sorry but that's not how it works. If you're not interested in funding a business, don't, but once you do, let the borrower do their thing. They know more about their business than you do.

Yes and clearly without paying out 18 billion in bonuses they would collapse.

Santiago · #**146** 02-05-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

The banks borrowed the money from the the FED. They are paying interest on the loan. It's in thier best interests to stay in business, which may include keeping key talent on board. I'm amazed at how many people on here seem to think they know how to run a multi-national bank, my guess is if you had the job it wouldn't be as simply as you all think. Obama seems to think he has the right to lend money and them stipulate how it's spent. I'm sorry but that's not how it works. If you're not interested in funding a business, don't, but once you do, let the borrower do their thing. They know more about their business than you do.

Actually banks lend money every day and stipulate how the money can be spent. The document is called a term loan agreement. Not saying they micro manage every dollar, but definitely keep an eye on the borrower. At least they used to. Maybe they quit this and hence the problems we have today.

30ashopper · #**147** 02-05-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santiago

Actually banks lend money every day and stipulate how the money can be spent. The document is called a term loan agreement. Not saying they micro manage every dollar, but definitely keep an eye on the borrower. At least they used to. Maybe they quit this and hence the problems we have today.

If I take out a home loan, should the bank have a right to define what my maximum salary will be after I take the loan? Maybe I'm missing something here but this to me seems like government regulation for the sake of winning political points. It achieves nothing in terms of strengthening the banking system and may well risk destabilizing the firms that borrow.

traderx · #**148** 02-05-2009, 10:59 PM

The government which bailed out the banks and auto companies currently has a budget deficit of a trillion dollars on its way to a budget deficit of two trillion dollars and total debt of $14 trillion and that same government knows how to run a bank or car company? This is nothing but a continuation of class warfare.

scooterbug44 · #**149** 02-06-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

If I take out a home loan, should the bank have a right to define what my maximum salary will be after I take the loan? Maybe I'm missing something here but this to me seems like government regulation for the sake of winning political points. It achieves nothing in terms of strengthening the banking system and may well risk destabilizing the firms that borrow.

No, but when you mismanage your finances so poorly that the bank has to foreclose upon your home, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to lower your credit limit or make some conditions on the emergency loan they give you.

Seriously, when the worst case scenario is that the people running failing companies that have to be bailed out by the taxpayers can only make half a million a year.........................I'll still be able to sleep at night.

30ashopper · #**150** 02-06-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

No, but when you mismanage your finances so poorly that the bank has to foreclose upon your home, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to lower your credit limit or make some conditions on the emergency loan they give you.

Seriously, when the worst case scenario is that the people running failing companies that have to be bailed out by the taxpayers can only make half a million a year.........................I'll still be able to sleep at night.

One of those conditions being - when you fix the house up to sell it, hire the cheapest contractor for the job?

Here4Good · #**151** 02-06-2009, 07:37 AM

When the company I work for was at a "do or die" point, our board renegotiated the compensation of the execs to reduce their salary to $1, eliminate the bonuses (not just for them, but for all of us) and to grant them a boatload of stock warrants. The challenge placed before them was that if they could push the company past this trouble spot, the rewards would be huge.

Like someone else said, CEOs have rock star egos. The execs all went for it, they pulled it off, and got the carrot at the end of the stick. I finally got to sell some stock options at a good price, and the company was now revenue positive (as opposed to profitable, apparently there's a difference...)

Since the execs and boards of these bailed-out companies, faced with a do-or-die decision, instead decided to redecorate their offices and clean out the bonus fund because there might not be any more, the government had to make the challenge instead. It would have been nice if the management of these companies had taken their positions seriously, but they didn't.

6thGen · #**152** 02-06-2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

It is a relatively small number. It is not everyone getting money in the bailout. It is those with exceptional monetary requests. From the WSJ:

How stock options and restricted stock awards to CEOs affect companies in normal times is irrelevant. In this case, if the CEO wants the stock awards he or she has to turn the company around. Ego, carrot, stick.

Granted, $500K a year is not enough to keep up a Park Avenue apartment and lifestyle, but I'm pretty sure it works fine for Detroit.

Are you high or being obtuse? I’m not going through the numbers, but I’d bet that the top 25 commercial banks by asset size are participating in TARP. Saying it’s a relatively small number is like noting that every team from the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, Pac 10 and Big East is on probation but it’s not affecting college football because North Texas, Western Kentucky, Akron and a bunch of 1AA schools are still playing.

I am aware of “exceptional monetary request” stipulation. That’s the latest. Originally it was any institution that participated. Regardless, it’s irrelevant. If it’s not every institution, then instead of distorting the talent gap across industries, you are distorting the talent gap within industries, which is even worse. Again, and I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this before you grasp it, it’s not just the CEO. It’s the top 35 people in the organization. It is asinine to say that the top 35 individuals in an organization are going to make headlines. I’m not against vested stock options as compensation. I’m against the federal government telling institutions how to compensate their talent. I’m against the federal government distorting talent allocation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

Not a 'gotcha' comment. I'm not talking about commercials, but other more dubious forms of corporate sponsorships that may or may not be effective in drumming up business. Especially if they aren't actually lending.

Bank of America spent millions to sponsor the NFL Experience at the Super Bowl. In normal times this may be a good thing for most companies. But the resulting very bad PR from this very public decision is more than likely going to hurt them because perception matters. It was a dumb move.

Notes from the Super Bowl:

ABC News: Bailed Out Bank of America Sponsors Super Bowl Fun Fest

Notes from the bowl games:

The Bailout Bowl: Big-Game Sponsors Scored Billions - WSJ.com

I’m also aware of the BoA Super Bowl experience, but here is what you said “bailout money should have strings attached, otherwise the banks will spend it on Super Bowl marketing”. Super Bowl marketing includes commercials. You said that the bailout money should have strings attached. In other words the federal government, not exactly known for sound money management or successful image promotion, should be dictating what type of marketing is acceptable and how much money should be spent on marketing. In all seriousness, where would you draw the line? Should they decide that executives should be forced to use Bic pens? What level of decision making should the federal government be involved in? Very few organizations have the CEO signing off on marketing. The chief marketing officer, not an executive position, usually has final say on that. So you are advocating involvement in tier three decision making. How far down the line do you want to go?

6thGen · #**153** 02-06-2009, 10:46 AM

Executive Compensation Rules for TARP Capital
Under the Treasury Rules, new executive compensation rules will govern all financial institutions that participate in the TARP Capital program. The provisions generally apply as long as the Treasury holds an equity or debt position, including warrants and the common stock underlying the warrants, in the institution. To be eligible to participate in TARP Capital, financial institutions must meet the following standards:

- certify that incentive compensation for senior executive officers (“SEO”) does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that would threaten the value of the institution;

- require that SEO bonus and incentive compensation be subject to “clawback”

- if the payment was based on materially inaccurate financial statements or performance metrics;

-prohibit any golden parachute payment to an SEO; and

-agree to deduct no more than $500,000 for an SEO’s compensation.

TooFarTampa · #**154** 02-06-2009, 12:39 PM

6thgen, I stop debating the moment anyone starts throwing insults in my direction. I don't play that way. So I guess you win!

To Here4Good: thanks for sharing your real world experience.

6thGen · #**155** 02-06-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

6thgen, I stop debating the moment anyone starts throwing insults in my direction. I don't play that way. So I guess you win!

To Here4Good: thanks for sharing your real world experience.

For crying out loud, that is a copout. I asked if you were high for saying that the bailout wasn't industry wide. I didn't go Chickpea on you and call you simple minded and poorly educated. Your comment was ridiculous. I'm sure you are swell in person and I'm sure many people enjoy having a cup of coffee with you. Now do you want to defend anything you said or was the "insult" an easy out?

TooFarTampa · #**156** 02-06-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

For crying out loud, that is a copout. I asked if you were high for saying that the bailout wasn't industry wide. I didn't go Chickpea on you and call you simple minded and poorly educated. Your comment was ridiculous. I'm sure you are swell in person and I'm sure many people enjoy having a cup of coffee with you. Now do you want to defend anything you said or was the "insult" an easy out?

It's not a copout. I just find it a waste of my time to debate with people who won't accept that others may have valid points that are opposite from their own . Find someone else to spar with.

6thGen · #**157** 02-06-2009, 01:06 PM

And you give me the violin thing? Ok, carry on with the Lounge and other things less taxing. I just find it odd that you enter into a debate then back out when I point out that a statement is asinine.

goodwitch58 · #**158** 02-06-2009, 01:25 PM

Maybe it's time for a TimeOut:

ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN

(a guide for Global Leadership)

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.

These are the things I learned:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Take any one of those items and extrapolate it into sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your family life or your work or government or your world and it holds true and clear and firm. Think what a better world it would be if we all - the whole world - had cookies and milk at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then lay down with our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments had as a basic policy to always put things back where they found them and to clean up their own mess.

And it is still true, no matter how old you are, when you go out in the world, it is best to hold hands and stick together.

[Source: "ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN" by Robert Fulghum. See his web site at Robert Fulghum, OFFICIAL Website, see NEW stories! ]

TooFarTampa · #**159** 02-06-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6thGen

And you give me the violin thing? Ok, carry on with the Lounge and other things less taxing. I just find it odd that you enter into a debate then back out when I point out that a statement is asinine.

Ha! I was playing the violins for the banks and for anyone who has to attempt to live on $500K a year in Charlotte, not for you. Sorry if you misunderstood. And by the way, I do actually listen to you and absorb your points. It's the insults (ie "find something less taxing to do") that I don't have patience with. That's MY personality. There are others who will bite right back. So find them!