If you voted Yes for the bail out, you voted for privacy invasion

[Ripsnort]

LOL at MG1942 and others that supported this. Check out the pork!

They now calling it the "Christmas tree bill" 


Kids' wooden arrows

Puerto Rican rum producers

Auto race tracks

Corporations operating in American Samoa. (The likely explanation for the latter: StarKist has a large tuna-canning operation in American Samoa. And StarKist's parent company happens to be located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)

One-year extension for wind and refined coal energy tax credits. A production credit for electricity produced from renewable marine energy sources (meaning through wave power and river power, or by exploiting the differences in ocean temperature). Energy credits for "small wind properties," geothermal heat pump systems, and energy-efficient residential properties.

New renewable-energy bonds. Up to $800 billion in energy bonds may be offered to the public, with a third from "public power providers," a third from governments, and the remainder from "cooperative electric companies."

Tax credits for "cellulosic biofuels" and for "carbon dioxide sequestration." An extension of an alternative fuel credit. Tax credits for "new qualified plug-in electric-drive motor vehicles." Bicycle commuters get a nod, as do regulations aimed at "residential top-loading clothes washers."

Internal Revenue Service gets new authority to conduct undercover operations.

Gentlemen, this started out as a simple 3 page bail out bill submitted by Bush. The Dems just porked it to death. Now, who's going to pay for all the pork? Just wait until after November.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10057618-38.html?tag=nl.e433

[Sandman]

Gentlemen, this started out as a simple 3 page bail out bill submitted by Bush. The Dems just porked it to death. Now, who's going to pay for all the pork? Just wait until after November.....

Is there a way to identify who added each earmark?

[Holden McGroin]

Kids' wooden arrows

Turns out that one of the companies that mfr toy wooden arrows is here in southern Oregon.  They manufacture other more useful bowhunting and archery products as well.

The arrow tax is 43 cent per arrow.  The tax was proposed by Mr Fred Bear of Bear Archery in order to pay for fish and wildlife programs.

Toy arrows are not for killing wildlife, and cannot be used for killing wildlife, so the tax should never have been put on them in the first place.

[Getback]

I'm voting libertarian. This is just insame. Heard about some of the pork on the radio.

I already sent my senator an e-mail about my displeasure. He voted for this turd.

[alskahawk]

 McCain on pork barrel "I will make them famous, my friends and you will know their names"  Ya we do and their names are McCain and Obama.

 

[Hangtime]

McCain on pork barrel "I will make them famous, my friends and you will know their names"  Ya we do and their names are McCain and Obama.

 

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

[RedTop]

Did any of you know...that in this bill...the government can actually LOWER the priciple on the loan so that the person can pay?

From the bill......Is this what that means? Sure looks like it to me.....If it IS...then Im off to buy me a 500k home and then see about getting it reduced to say...100k

SEC. 109. Foreclosure mitigation efforts.

(a) Residential mortgage loan servicing standards.—To the extent that the Secretary acquires mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures. In addition, the Secretary may use loan guarantees and credit enhancements to facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable foreclosures.

(b) Coordination.—The Secretary shall coordinate with the Corporation, the Board (with respect to any mortgage or mortgage-backed securities or pool of securities held, owned, or controlled by or on behalf of a Federal reserve bank, as provided in section 110(a)(1)(C)), the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and other Federal Government entities that hold troubled assets to attempt to identify opportunities for the acquisition of classes of troubled assets that will improve the ability of the Secretary to improve the loan modification and restructuring process and, where permissible, to permit bona fide tenants who are current on their rent to remain in their homes under the terms of the lease. In the case of a mortgage on a residential rental property, the plan required under this section shall include protecting Federal, State, and local rental subsidies and protections, and ensuring any modification takes into account the need for operating funds to maintain decent and safe conditions at the property.

(c) Consent to reasonable loan modification requests.—Upon any request arising under existing investment contracts, the Secretary shall consent, where appropriate, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to reasonable requests for loss mitigation measures, including term extensions, rate reductions, principal write downs, increases in the proportion of loans within a trust or other structure allowed to be modified, or removal of other limitation on modifications.

SEC. 110. Assistance to homeowners.

(a) Definitions.—As used in this section—

(1) the term “Federal property manager” means—

(A) the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in its capacity as conservator of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;

(B) the Corporation, with respect to residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities held by any bridge depository institution pursuant to section 11(n) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and

(C) the Board, with respect to any mortgage or mortgage-backed securities or pool of securities held, owned, or controlled by or on behalf of a Federal reserve bank, other than mortgages or securities held, owned, or controlled in connection with open market operations under section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 353), or as collateral for an advance or discount that is not in default;


(2) the term “consumer” has the same meaning as in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602);

(3) the term “insured depository institution” has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and

(4) the term “servicer” has the same meaning as in section 6(i)(2) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2605(i)(2)).


(b) Homeowner assistance by agencies.—

(1) In general.—To the extent that the Federal property manager holds, owns, or controls mortgages, mortgage backed securities, and other assets secured by residential real estate, including multifamily housing, the Federal property manager shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use its authority to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages, and considering net present value to the taxpayer, to take advantage of the HOPE for Homeowners Program under section 257 of the National Housing Act or other available programs to minimize foreclosures.

(2) Modifications.—In the case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications made under paragraph (1) may include—

(A) reduction in interest rates;

(B) reduction of loan principal; and

(C) other similar modifications.

[Hangtime]

well, if you were lucky enough to buy that 500k house 6 months ago, never paid a dime on it and the paper from it wound up in fed hands..

maybe.

More likely the treasury dept goons would stop by and have yer bellybutton shipped to guantanamo bay and they'd give the house as a perk to an IRS agent.

Either way, wouldn't hold my breath.. doubt you'd be able to get a loan for a hamburger with a hot dog franchise for collateral today.

[FrodeMk3]

The funny thing is, from what I understand, if you were to lower any principal's, it would increase the net loss, wouldn't it?

[RedTop]

well, if you were lucky enough to buy that 500k house 6 months ago, never paid a dime on it and the paper from it wound up in fed hands..

maybe.

More likely the treasury dept goons would stop by and have yer bellybutton shipped to guantanamo bay and they'd give the house as a perk to an IRS agent.

Either way, wouldn't hold my breath.. doubt you'd be able to get a loan for a hamburger with a hot dog franchise for collateral today.

lol...Wife and I have a house...just wondering if what I read I understood right. If thats the case...wont that ruin the value of homes around it if they lower the price? Seems like it to me.

[FrodeMk3]

lol...Wife and I have a house...just wondering if what I read I understood right. If thats the case...wont that ruin the value of homes around it if they lower the price? Seems like it to me.

I think you need to look at the difference between the principal, and the value/price...the principal is the (actual) money still out on loan, not counting either the interest or the other fees, such as escrow. The prices/home values have been falling since about a year ago. However, that doesn't affect the principal on loans already made. What's been happening to a lot of people, is that they've had their houses fall in value below what they initially paid for them. So, many people are already in the situation of owing more, sometimes much more, than what their homes' are currently worth. This is what is known as being 'upside down'.

[RedTop]

I think you need to look at the difference between the principal, and the value/price...the principal is the (actual) money still out on loan, not counting either the interest or the other fees, such as escrow. The prices/home values have been falling since about a year ago. However, that doesn't affect the principal on loans already made. What's been happening to a lot of people, is that they've had their houses fall in value below what they initially paid for them. So, many people are already in the situation of owing more, sometimes much more, than what their homes' are currently worth. This is what is known as being 'upside down'.

Got ya and understand that......BUT.....Lets say a person get's thier priciple lowered 50k. (example) And the current value of my home is say 30k more than I paid. (right now its not just an example). When they go to sell....say in a few years....wont the fact that he can ask so much less for his....and I want to sell mine...wont that make my house worth less on the market? Say they're the same floor plans in a subdivision. Basically no upgrades. Just a house. Seems like the home owner that did things right are going to take it in the tail come selling time. 

I could be totally screwed up here in my thinking

[Hangtime]

I think you need to look at the difference between the principal, and the value/price...the principal is the (actual) money still out on loan, not counting either the interest or the other fees, such as escrow. The prices/home values have been falling since about a year ago. However, that doesn't affect the principal on loans already made. What's been happening to a lot of people, is that they've had their houses fall in value below what they initially paid for them. So, many people are already in the situation of owing more, sometimes much more, than what their homes' are currently worth. This is what is known as being 'upside down'.

[Hangtime]

Got ya and understand that......BUT.....Lets say a person get's thier priciple lowered 50k. (example) And the current value of my home is say 30k more than I paid. (right now its not just an example). When they go to sell....say in a few years....wont the fact that he can ask so much less for his....and I want to sell mine...wont that make my house worth less on the market? Say they're the same floor plans in a subdivision. Basically no upgrades. Just a house. Seems like the home owner that did things right are going to take it in the tail come selling time. 

I could be totally screwed up here in my thinking

As to who makes more money.. sure. But, regardless of what's invested, the value remains as only what the house will bring.

[FrodeMk3]

Got ya and understand that......BUT.....Lets say a person get's thier priciple lowered 50k. (example) And the current value of my home is say 30k more than I paid. (right now its not just an example). When they go to sell....say in a few years....wont the fact that he can ask so much less for his....and I want to sell mine...wont that make my house worth less on the market? Say they're the same floor plans in a subdivision. Basically no upgrades. Just a house. Seems like the home owner that did things right are going to take it in the tail come selling time. 

I could be totally screwed up here in my thinking

I see what you're saying, however, I kinda doubt that you'll see much of that, because many times' when people sell a house, it's usually to buy another. A Flipper might try this, but if they are already in possesion of one or more deeds, they might not let him adjust his principle down. Also, a flipper is going to want to maximize profit if he's going to re-buy in a market that is on the rise, if he's going to stay in business. A regular homeowner will want to profit off of it too, since most of the time, whether being forced to move into something else due to job relocation, financial difficulty, or simply finding a better house, they still need a lot more money for the next place, either in the form of a down-payment, or for other things. So, even if they get a re-adjustment of their principle (Read the fine print on the bill, it may only be for those in trouble with payments) They will still try to sell high.