Bailout Bill - Bike Related!!

[Ray]

Believe it or not, there was something in the pork laden final version of the bailout bill that was bike related. I got the following press release forwarded from someone in my bike club. I guess as badly as the whole thing was bungled, and as questionably effective as the bailout bill may be, I'll take some small consolation from this:

Bicycle Commuter Act Passes Congress, Awaits President’s Signature

After seven long years, the bicycle commuter tax provision has finally passed both the House and Senate as part of the financial bailout package. President Bush has said that he is eager to sign the legislation. “We are delighted that the bicycle commuter benefits act has passed after a lengthy and persistent campaign spearheaded by Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR),” said League President Andy Clarke. “Bicycle commuters will now be extended similar benefits to people who take transit and drive to work – it’s an equitable and sensible incentive to encourage greater energy independence, improve air quality and health, and even help tackle climate change. Thanks to everyone who has helped reach this milestone, especially Walter Finch and Mele Williams, our government relations staff over the years who have worked tirelessly with Congressman Blumenauer, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and many others in Congress.”

Thanks also to all of you around the country who have contacted your congressional leaders over the years. Keep checking back at http://www.bikeleague.org as we work on the implementation process.

Matthew Banks
Director of Membership
League of American Bicyclists

[stuckey]

Do you have some details of what the bill entails or a link to it?

[Z3c]

From what I understand, it allows something like $300/year of tax breaks for bike gear/improvements to your bike if you commute. Not sure what the restrictions are, I would assume you would have to commute some minimum % of the time but who knows. I assume more details will be avail fairly soon..

Scott

[stuckey]

From what I understand, it allows something like $300/year of tax breaks for bike gear/improvements to your bike if you commute. Not sure what the restrictions are, I would assume you would have to commute some minimum % of the time but who knows. I assume more details will be avail fairly soon..

Scott

Thanks, It sounds like a small break but at-least it is something.

[davep]

Yeah, great. I guess its only pork when it benefits someone else. :crap:

While reasonable people can differ on the response to the current financial problems and whether the current bailout bill will be effective or not, to laden the supposedly most important bill of our lifetimes with "sweeteners" and items not even tangentially related to the current problem is disgraceful and a complete abdication of responsibility. :mad:

[mikki]

Thanks, It sounds like a small break but at-least it is something.

I'll take a $300 tax break anyday!!

[Tobias]

I'll take a $300 tax break anyday!!Good thing we don't all ride. Otherwise I'd have to send you your $300 and you'd have to send me mine in return.

We'd break even, except for whatever cut the government keeps for handling our money; maybe what, 10% like Vegas?

Maybe I'd send you $300 and you get to keep $270, and in return you'd send my $300 so I get $270.

In the long run we'll both feel great but will be out $30 each. I love the new math. ;)

[dannyg1]

Yeah, great. I guess its only pork when it benefits someone else. :crap:

While reasonable people can differ on the response to the current financial problems and whether the current bailout bill will be effective or not, to laden the supposedly most important bill of our lifetimes with "sweeteners" and items not even tangentially related to the current problem is disgraceful and a complete abdication of responsibility. :mad:

While I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, it's hard, given the central package of what's just been given and to whom, to not think that the sweeteners aren't the best part of the whole deal.
This clip, from 2007 mind you, is the best, most concise explanation I've yet found of what's just been done. It's very impressive that anyone could've been surprised by the recent turn of events when British comedians had the whole thing down cold over a year ago:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/187.html

Really an incredible clip!

[Ahneida Ride]

1 trillion to 10 trillion new frns entering the market..

expect price of a Serotta to Double at least in the next 5 -6 years.
At 12K frn for a bike we will be renting em from the banks just like we
do our houses, cars. etc.

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store...

[Tobias]

It appears world markets were not comforted by our government’s rescue of the bike industry. :rolleyes:

BTW, did you guys see 60 Minute’s coverage of the issue last night? Some of the experts interviewed seemed to emphasize that the sub-prime debacle on its own would have not been enough to cause an economic meltdown, except that the banks came up with the equivalent of an insurance policy to help sell the investments by limiting losses to the buyers. And when things went south it was that insurance that came back to bite them.

Rather than calling it insurance because it would have required total regulation, they called it something else to circumvent the system and sold it anyway. I don’t know much about it but it seems an investigation is in order. If the intent was purely to circumvent regulations, everyone involved should be charged criminally IMHO. Sadly we didn’t learn enough from Enron. :crap:

[Ray]

It appears world markets were not comforted by our government’s rescue of the bike industry. :rolleyes:

BTW, did you guys see 60 Minute’s coverage of the issue last night? Some of the experts interviewed seemed to emphasize that the sub-prime debacle on its own would have not been enough to cause an economic meltdown, except that the banks came up with the equivalent of an insurance policy to help sell the investments by limiting losses to the buyers. And when things went south it was that insurance that came back to bite them.

Rather than calling it insurance because it would have required total regulation, they called it something else to circumvent the system and sold it anyway. I don’t know much about it but it seems an investigation is in order. If the intent was purely to circumvent regulations, everyone involved should be charged criminally IMHO. Sadly we didn’t learn enough from Enron. :crap:
I assume you're talking about the whole "securitization" business where they split up the mortgages, bundled the pieces and sold the bundles. The assumption being that any individual sub-prime loan would have been a bad risk, but if you bundle them together, even if a few fail, most of them won't and the whole "security" does OK as an investment. I think that's how it was supposed to work. I'm not sure I understand that correctly or if that's even what you're talking about. The key to my understanding of this whole mess is a keen understanding of how little I understand any of it.

-Ray

[CNY rider]

I assume you're talking about the whole "securitization" business where they split up the mortgages, bundled the pieces and sold the bundles. The assumption being that any individual sub-prime loan would have been a bad risk, but if you bundle them together, even if a few fail, most of them won't and the whole "security" does OK as an investment. I think that's how it was supposed to work. I'm not sure I understand that correctly or if that's even what you're talking about. The key to my understanding of this whole mess is a keen understanding of how little I understand any of it.

-Ray

Actually Ray I think he's referring to CDS's.

Imagine this scenario: I'm allowed to go take out life insurance on Mr. X.
Mr. X does not know I hold a policy that profits in the event of his demise.
If and when Mr. X dies I will be paid off handsomely, unbeknownst to Mr. X.
Now imagine I'm allowed to go out and do everything I possibly can to KILL Mr. X.

That's what has gone on in the CDS market, except you have to substitute company X for Mr. X.


Perhaps centaur will come along and write it in a more eloquent way!

[William]

.....Rather than calling it insurance because it would have required total regulation, they called it something else to circumvent the system and sold it anyway. I don’t know much about it but it seems an investigation is in order. If the intent was purely to circumvent regulations, everyone involved should be charged criminally IMHO. Sadly we didn’t learn enough from Enron. :crap:


And by calling it something else (swaps), they wouldn't be regulated or be required to have the capitol reserves to back them up.

Yeah, I would say circumventing the system like they did should require some big heads to roll in this fiasco.



William

[Tobias]

And by calling it something else (swaps), they wouldn't be regulated or be required to have the capitol reserves to back them up.

Yeah, I would say circumventing the system like they did should require some big heads to roll in this fiasco.



WilliamThanks for reminding me of what they called it....swaps. :confused:

I have no idea what they actually "swapped" to reduce the risk to buyers, but it obviously didn't work as intended. The scary part for me is that they were throwing around numbers in the $60 trillion range, which is many times the amount of the US debt. Unbelievable. :crap: :crap: :crap: :crap:

No wonder some experts now question whether a mere $700 billion can do what was hoped.