If they aren't surrendering they are striking: Again, the union thugs are at it again. DOW responds by falling +100 this morning.


PARIS (Dow Jones)--As many as 1 million people marched in France Thursday, unions said, protesting against the government's management of the economic crisis, which is pushing up unemployment and denting workers' income.

"We are not seeing any stimulus plan," Jean-Claude Mailly, secretary-general of Force Ouvriere, the country's third-largest union, said on Canal+ television. "People are exasperated by layoffs, by companies going bankrupt."

Francois Chereque, head of CFDT, the country's largest union, said it was the biggest workers' gathering for 20 years, but official figures weren't available in the afternoon.

While public services were little disrupted, with the Paris metro system running almost regularly and over half of national railway trains in service, private-sector workers, including those from automaker Ford Motor Co, (F) and telecom company Free marched in Paris. Free is unit of Iliad SA (403591.FR)

The strike is seen as a key test for the government, as dissatisfaction with a worsening economic environment risks derailing President Nicolas Sarkozy's reforms.

The government maintains a stimulus effort worth EUR26 billion, or 2.0% of the country's gross domestic product, is enough to boost the economy, and that reforms are necessary to sharpen the country's competitiveness.

"We have reforms, we have a stimulus plan. The strike isn't a response to the crisis," Budget Minister Eric Woerth said on RMC radio. "We must remain calm in this moment of trouble." Woerth also said unemployment numbers, which were due out Thursday, but were postponed because of the strike, "will be bad."

The outlook for the French economy worsened significantly earlier this month, as the central bank estimated that the GDP fell 1.1% in the October-December period, compared with the 0.7% decline that it had previously forecast for the those three months.

The government is still sticking to its forecast, predicting that the economy will expand between 0.2% and 0.5% this year. The European Commission sees the economy contract 1.8% this year, its worst performance for over half a century.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/...explainer/index.html

How a 'perfect storm' led to the economic crisis


(CNN) -- The U.S. economy is clearly in terrible shape. What is less clear is how we got here.

An index of home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas fell at a record annual pace in November of 2008, according to a recent report.

Opinions vary on when and where to begin the story, but many experts trace the origins of the current economic situation to the housing bubble that came about earlier this decade.

Housing prices jumped at a rate above 6 percent in 1999 and increased rapidly and steadily as the decade turned, according to a recent study by the Brookings Institution.

"After the mid-1990s ... real house prices went on a sustained surge through 2005, making residential real estate not only a great investment, but it was also widely perceived as a very safe investment," the study said.

The prices eventually moved "out of line with fundamentals like household income" and the bubble formed, the study said. Read the complete Brookings study

There were two trends developing at that time that contributed to the housing bubble, experts said.

The Federal Reserve Board, to combat the recession of 2000-01 and the economic effects of the September 11 terrorist attacks, began drastically slashing interest rates.

Consequently, it was very easy to borrow money, especially if you wanted to buy a home.

Meanwhile, global investors -- flush with cash from the worldwide economic boom of the 1990s and '00s -- were looking to the U.S. economy to make even more money.

"You have a group of people growing richer by leaps and bounds," said Peter Rodriguez, an economist at the University of Virginia. "And they liked the idea of parking some cash in the biggest, safest economy in the world."

Enter mortgage-backed securities

Wall Street firms sought to connect the rich investors with the rapidly expanding housing market with the help of complicated financial instruments.

These instruments -- such as mortgage-backed securities we've heard so much about -- made it easier to move the investors' funds into the housing market, which fed the extraordinary price sprial, Rodriguez said.

"It began to really take on a life of its own when people saw how much money they could make in housing," he said. "Before long, everybody was pushing along the momentum of this train."

So how do these mortgage-backed securities work and what role did they play?

Let's say there are three prospective homebuyers in a neighborhood. A local bank makes mortgage loans to all three, then bundles up the mortgages and sells the bundle to a big Wall Street firm, like the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

The Wall Street firm takes its bundles of mortgages and offers them to investors. The investors make money off the interest payments from the original borrowers.

These instruments helped minimize risk for the local bank because it was no longer responsible for the loans it made to the local homebuyers.


It was an intoxicating era when you could make a lot of money quickly through the housing market, and you did it through the "basic idea of leverage," Rodriguez said.

He provided an example: You take out a mortgage loan for $100,000 and make a 20 percent down payment, which would equal $20,000.

If the price of the house goes up to $120,000, you've effectively doubled your money. If you sell at that price -- assuming there are no transaction costs -- you walk away with an extra $20,000.

Leverage works the same way for banks. They borrow from other banks or other institutions so that they can hand out more loans and make more money.

"This encourages all sorts of risky behavior by individuals looking to buy homes, and it encourages banks to lend because, in an environment where prices rise, they're making lots of money, too," Rodriguez said.

The housing collapse

Economists say not everyone can -- or should -- buy a home, but that didn't to stop many homebuyers, banks or Wall Street firms during the housing bubble, when the only way for prices and profits was up.

Some banks and other institutions were even eager to lend money to prospective homebuyers with poor credit and a spotty financial history who would not typically qualify for loans.

These transactions are known as "subprime" mortgage loans. They generally have interest rates that are above "prime" interest rates available to borrowers with good credit.

On its face, there is nothing devious or illegal about a high interest "subprime" loan. Its simply a case of lender taking on a higher risk and receiving a higher interest rate in return.

However, nearly half of the loans made in 2006 were of the subprime variety, which increased the risk of borrowers defaulting on many banks' balance sheets.

"Prime mortgages dropped to 64 percent of the total in 2004, 56 percent in 2005 and 52 percent in 2006," the Brookings study notes.

Even so, many banks and brokerage firms continued bundling the mortgages, many of them bad loans, and Wall Street kept buying them and selling them to investors. And the people who could have put a brake on the increasing amount of risk -- the agencies that regulate the U.S. financial sector -- weren't paying attention.

"As long as everyone was paying their mortgage, that was fine," said Ali Velshi, CNN's chief business correspondent. "[But] we didn't take into account with these mortgages that people might lose their jobs, the interest rate might go up and the housing prices may go down.

"Guess what? All three happened."

Housing prices started trending downward, and by 2007 the bubble had burst.

"You're a homeowner or a bank, and you're trying to sell your property, but everything else on the block is for sale, too," Velshi said. "Everything collapsed like we've never seen before."

The credit crisis

Knee-deep in bad loans, many banks and lending institutions panicked. Many of them were over-leveraged, experts say; simply put, they had borrowed beyond what was responsible and were now on the hook.

Another way to understand it is that for every dollar a bank may have had in the vault, it had $10 to $25 floating in the market in loans, and a good bit of that money was tied up in bad loans.

The banks sought to decrease that ratio by either getting rid of the bad loans or raising more money, Rodriguez said.

The problem with dumping the loans on the market is that "it lowers the price, and anyone else who has them is suddenly in even worse shape," he said.

It was a "death spiral of prices," and it spread like a virus across the financial sector, from legendary Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers to local and regional banks and brokerage firms across the country, Rodriguez said.

As stockholders found out about the bad loans these firms were carrying, they pulled their money out. The markets plummeted.

Meanwhile, paralyzed by their bad assets and looking to hoard cash, banks stopped lending. It didn't matter if you were an individual with good credit, a healthy business or another bank.

The American financial system was effectively frozen.

"It was a perfect storm," Velshi said. "It was a lack of regulation, it was greed and creativity in the financial industry, and it was an American dream that got off track."

This was bound to happen. Thanks to Dems for Community Reinvestment Act, suing Citi Corps etc. These filthy politicians are making millions and living peacefully, but it will be US - USA TAX PAYERS, who will ultimately pay the price of their dirty politics and selfishness.

What is a Credit Default Swap:

(CDS) are the most widely used type of credit derivative and a powerful force in the world markets. The first CDS contract was introduced by JP Morgan in 1997 and by mid-2007, the value of the market had ballooned to an estimated $45 trillion, according to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association - over twice the size of the U.S. stock market. Read on to find out how credit default swaps work and the main uses for them.

How They Work
A CDS contract involves the transfer of the credit risk of municipal bonds, emerging market bonds, mortgage-backed securities, or corporate debt between two parties. It is similar to insurance because it provides the buyer of the contract, who often owns the underlying credit, with protection against default, a credit rating downgrade, or another negative "credit event." The seller of the contract assumes the credit risk that the buyer does not wish to shoulder in exchange for a periodic protection fee similar to an insurance premium, and is obligated to pay only if a negative credit event occurs. It is important to note that the CDS contract is not actually tied to a bond, but instead references it. For this reason, the bond involved in the transaction is called the "reference entity." A contract can reference a single credit, or multiple credits...


The scary news is the amounts of it that exist. Over 45 trillion. Much of it junk bond quality or near worthless. At present JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Citi are the three biggest players in this arena. BofA and Citi have multi trillion dollar exposure between the two of them.

When the mortgage crisis first hit the fed reacted by lowering interest rates. The purpose was to lower the monthly payments on those mortgages that were adjustable rate. Which were the majority of mortgages issued in place like California and Nevada. Coincidentally the hardest hit.

A lot of the CDS contracts are tied to mortgages. Mortgages that were sold in bundles to investment banks etc. The buyers, many of which were foreign investors, are now holding mortgages going into default. The CDS contract they paid for to protect against the default is potentially not worth the paper its printed on.

The infusion of billions in bailout money is a small dose of life support to offset the potential losses. It probably won't be enough. If the mortgage default rate doesn't improve the biggest players could be put out of business due to the size of their risk in the trillions. Keep in mind a lot of the money the banks are getting is being sent overseas to cover the CDS bets those foreign investors used to shield themselves from the credit crunch. Which also happened to coincide with the huge spike in oil. Are the two connected?

You are now a renter


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) extended their freeze on evictions through the end of February and said they would begin granting month-to-month leases to tenants of foreclosed properties.

Freddie Mac said it would go further and allow certain former homeowners to convert to renters under a new program. Freddie Mac also said it would explore whether former owners that were foreclosed upon might be able to hang onto their homes by reinstating their mortgage at modified terms.

"In about half of foreclosure sales there is no conversation between the borrower and the mortgage servicer about workouts," Ingrid Beckles, Freddie's senior vice president of default asset management, said in a statement.

The mortgage giants announced the moves in separate press releases Friday. Each company's moratorium on foreclosures for the loans it owns or guarantees was set to expire this coming Saturday.

Fannie Mae said it would offer month-to-month leases only to tenants of single-family foreclosed properties. Freddie, meanwhile, did not say its policy would exclude multi-family properties.

Freddie said tenants and former owners must demonstrate they have the income to pay the monthly rent. For tenants, the amount would be based on market rents or the amount the tenant was paying prior to foreclosure, whichever is lower. Former owner-occupants would be offered month-to-month leases based on market rates. -By Jessica Holzer, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9228; jessica.holzer@dowjones.com

How much was lost?

The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 IndexSM, the broadest measure of the U.S. stock market, was down -37.23 percent in 2008 reflecting a $6.9 trillion decrease in overall market value, according to Wilshire Associates Incorporated, a global leader in investment services and consulting. This is the worst annual return for the DJ Wilshire 5000 surpassing the 1974 decline of -28.39 perce...



This is just the stock market and doesn't take into account losses from home foreclosures or the derivative market. Which are substantially more. CDS and already foreclosed homes accounted for tens of trillions in losses already.

The market losses are more direct since much of the money is in the form of retirement accounts. And a lot of it was pulled out which solidified the losses. Had they stayed in the loss would have stayed on paper only and eventually rebounded prior to redemption.

The significance of this is the hype over the stimulus being offered. So far a trillion or so. One trillion compared to the minimum of 16 trillion in market, foreclosure, and derivative losses so far. I don't think the fed can print money fast enough.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
You are now a renter


WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) extended their freeze on evictions through the end of February and said they would begin granting month-to-month leases to tenants of foreclosed properties.

Freddie Mac said it would go further and allow certain former homeowners to convert to renters under a new program. Freddie Mac also said it would explore whether former owners that were foreclosed upon might be able to hang onto their homes by reinstating their mortgage at modified terms.

"In about half of foreclosure sales there is no conversation between the borrower and the mortgage servicer about workouts," Ingrid Beckles, Freddie's senior vice president of default asset management, said in a statement.

The mortgage giants announced the moves in separate press releases Friday. Each company's moratorium on foreclosures for the loans it owns or guarantees was set to expire this coming Saturday.

Fannie Mae said it would offer month-to-month leases only to tenants of single-family foreclosed properties. Freddie, meanwhile, did not say its policy would exclude multi-family properties.

Freddie said tenants and former owners must demonstrate they have the income to pay the monthly rent. For tenants, the amount would be based on market rents or the amount the tenant was paying prior to foreclosure, whichever is lower. Former owner-occupants would be offered month-to-month leases based on market rates. -By Jessica Holzer, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9228; jessica.holzer@dowjones.com

Many of the owners of these foreclosed properties have been renting out to tenants and pocketing the money. Is this mont to month lease being offered to tenants living in the house or to the actual owners of the properties/ or both scenarios ?

what a deal... eh.. First we took all your money in form of mortgage , foreclosed... when you defaulted.., but now you can stay by us reinstating your payment plan.. but this time you get no equity/ownership.

The New american dream folks


Oh sorry.. I read last paragraph that answered my question. Well in that case, listen to this scenario.. The homes will become section 8 qualified and then 90% of the rent will be paid from government to "new landlord"

Only in America

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 4now,

I can easily see us printing $1 Trillion bill and it will be in circulation by the time Obama leaves office. Hey he did good and lived up to his word. He made all of us rich. Before we had $100s in our bank, now we have trillions.

And now for the strings attached


NEW YORK (Marke****ch) -- Lawmakers aren't just trying to claw back the bonuses. They're now looking to undo Wall Street's contractual agreements and marketing strategies.

Two House members, Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ted Poe, R-Texas, have asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to dissolve Citigroup Inc.'s (C, Trade ) $400 million naming-rights deal for the new home of Major League Baseball's New York Mets. See full story.

The congressmen say Citigroup is in no position to pay that kind of money when it's received $40 billion in taxpayer assistance and government guarantees on another $250 billion on the bank's balance sheet.

Undoing the naming rights deal would not be unprecedented. American International Group Inc. (AIG, Trade ), another beneficiary of a government bailout, chose not to renew its $20 million annual sponsorship of Manchester United, the English soccer team. Troubled companies including Enron, MCI, Savvis and also have backed out of naming-rights agreements.

But before lawmakers tear up the Citi Field contract, they should be mindful of a few things. First, Citigroup, love it or hate it, has been a good corporate citizen of New York over the years. The company and its employees have paid billions in taxes.

Second, a contract is a contract. The ultimate goal for these bailed-out companies is to return to profitability and honor its commitments. That means paying back the $40 billion with interest and the bank honoring its agreements.

Third, will Citigroup have to float all its marketing ideas past Kucinich and Poe?


Lesson learned. If you ask the gov. for help be prepared to become government owned. Even though you paid taxes your use of your tax money makes you their property. Here comes the the new USSA. Union of Socialist States of America.

Warren Buffet 2002 Smart guy


The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear....[They] are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal. -- Warren Buffett, Chairman and Chief Executive, from his Letter to Shareholders, 2002 Berkshire Hathaway annual report...

Derivative Bomb





As illustrated by the above graph each of the banks are heavily invested or obligated to derivatives. Basically a derivative is a bet, more or less. Its based on an underlying stock, mortgage portfolio, or other type of security. Usually it involves the security going up or down in value and taking a profit on that shift in value over a large number of shares of the asset.

With what happened in recent months where everything went down you have to wonder. How many of those derivatives were bets on the value increasing? All losers of course. Second question. If the banks assets are so small in comparison to their assumed risk. How are they going to cover losses? They can't.

No matter how noble Obama's intention he can't tax us enough to cover this one. He does assume a couple million dollars per person is too much?

I take it Davdah, you never heard of the options market. That is where the most common derivatives are used. Derivitives can be risky, just ask the former Orange County Treasurer in 1987 when Orange County defaulted. But they are used to help reduce risk from losses. Banks can have directives holding in commodities, real estate, monetary instruments, etc, as long as they do not market that same product to consumers directly through the bank.

Again, banks are not lending because they are recouping the losses they incurred. The natural, capitalistic market response to these losses is to now have stricter lending for a while. That is the main reason why banks are not lending, whether the government helped or not. So I guess you will have to wait awhile too Davdah.

AP Investigation: Banks sought foreign workers


By FRANK BASS and RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writers Frank Bass And Rita Beamish, Associated Press Writers – 2 hrs 9 mins ago
In this Sept. 26, 2007, file photo Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, talks to AP – In this Sept. 26, 2007, file photo Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, talks to reporters in his Capitol Hill …
Related Quotes Symbol.

SANTA CLARA, Calif. – Banks collecting billions of dollars in federal bailout money sought government permission to bring thousands of foreign workers to the U.S. for high-paying jobs, according to an Associated Press review of visa applications.

The dozen banks receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years for positions that included senior vice presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and human resources specialists. The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, nearly twice the median income for all American households.

The figures are significant because they show that the bailed-out banks, being kept afloat with U.S. taxpayer money, actively sought to hire foreign workers instead of American workers. As the economic collapse worsened last year — with huge numbers of bank employees laid off — the numbers of visas sought by the dozen banks in AP's analysis increased by nearly one-third, from 3,258 in fiscal 2007 to 4,163 in fiscal 2008.

The AP reviewed visa applications the banks filed with the Labor Department under the H-1B visa program, which allows temporary employment of foreign workers in specialized-skill and advanced-degree positions.

It is unclear how many foreign workers the banks actually hired; the government does not release those details. The actual number is likely a fraction of the 21,800 foreign workers the banks sought to hire because the government limits the number of visas it grants to 85,000 each year among all U.S. employers.

During the last three months of 2008, the largest banks that received taxpayer loans announced more than 100,000 layoffs. The number of foreign workers included among those laid off is unknown.

Foreigners are attractive hires because companies have found ways to pay them less than American workers.

quote:

Originally posted by Hudson:
I take it Davdah, you never heard of the options market. That is where the most common derivatives are used. Derivitives can be risky, just ask the former Orange County Treasurer in 1987 when Orange County defaulted. But they are used to help reduce risk from losses. Banks can have directives holding in commodities, real estate, monetary instruments, etc, as long as they do not market that same product to consumers directly through the bank.

Again, banks are not lending because they are recouping the losses they incurred. The natural, capitalistic market response to these losses is to now have stricter lending for a while. That is the main reason why banks are not lending, whether the government helped or not. So I guess you will have to wait awhile too Davdah.

Although dialog is appreciated the arrogance should be muted a bit. Yes, I've heard of options and futures. And to to say 'Again'? Didn't I comment already concerning where much of the bailout money is going? See a few posts up in the 'credit default swap' post. Thankfully and perhaps because of my prudence I don't need to borrow.

BTW, it's derivative, not directives.

The records were asked for months ago.



WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd said on Monday he will refinance two mortgages that he took out in 2003 under Countrywide Financial Corp's VIP program and later triggered a Senate ethics investigation.

The refinancing of his Washington townhouse and Connecticut home will end the Senate Banking Committee chairman's transactions with Countrywide.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said he regretted doing business with Countrywide, which was once the nation's largest home lender, and that he was publicly releasing all records in his possession related to the loans.

"I regret I did not do this sooner and I apologize to the people of Connecticut for the delay," he said in a statement.

As chairman of the Senate's banking panel, Dodd plays an influential role in overseeing laws that affect U.S. lenders, investment firms, international trade finance and housing.



Dodd, Countrywide. About even I'd say.

Right again

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Shares of Bank of America Corp. (BAC) fell as much as 12% Monday as investors digested a note from FBR Capital Markets that suggests the "bad bank" policy being considered will not work for big banks, and an alternative plan that would involve closing big banks would.

The note raised new concerns among investors, who have already been worried Bank of America took on more than it could handle in acquiring Merrill Lynch.



Looks like the big boys may be going down for the count. Weapons of mass destruction existed after all. They were just hidden in the banks.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:

quote:

Originally posted by Hudson:
I take it Davdah, you never heard of the options market. That is where the most common derivatives are used. Derivitives can be risky, just ask the former Orange County Treasurer in 1987 when Orange County defaulted. But they are used to help reduce risk from losses. Banks can have directives holding in commodities, real estate, monetary instruments, etc, as long as they do not market that same product to consumers directly through the bank.

Again, banks are not lending because they are recouping the losses they incurred. The natural, capitalistic market response to these losses is to now have stricter lending for a while. That is the main reason why banks are not lending, whether the government helped or not. So I guess you will have to wait awhile too Davdah.

Although dialog is appreciated the arrogance should be muted a bit. Yes, I've heard of options and futures. And to to say 'Again'? Didn't I comment already concerning where much of the bailout money is going? See a few posts up in the 'credit default swap' post. Thankfully and perhaps because of my prudence I don't need to borrow.

BTW, it's derivative, not directives.

Davdah,
Part of my response was a tongue in check to your response

To be frank, your articles and your postings about what "truly caused" the fiasco has really nothing to do with it. Again, quoting from Larry Kudlow, even thought he is an economist, is not exactly what is happeining.

The first bailout plan of $250B was necessary by almost every economist in the banking industry. Yet, I knew the banks would still come to restricted credits. Thus, your alluding that banks holding derivatives, the FBR report, and the article about Sen Dodd, has nothing to do with why banks are not lending. The FBR report is a lagging indicator in a bearish market. Any slight of hand, any hint of negativity, and stocks will drop. That is how Wall Street operates.

But if you truly want to know the reasons why, read the New York Fed Report on banking reports. Here is something for you to read by the FDIC Chairman. Or you can look at this.

In either case, neither are really toward the TARP or to "poor poeple" or to "minorities" which is what Larry Kudlow wants you to believe.

The foreclosure mess and derivative obligations have nothing to do with it? It has everything to do with it. Those bills have to be paid by the banks. They were given huge amounts of money by Bush and now Obama. What happened to it all? Was it lent out? No, they used to pay their own obligations.

Problem is. Those obligations are more enormous than any stimulus plan DC could possibly create.

I read through the article you posted. It said a 20% decrease in areas affected? Really! Try more like 50% or more. Couple that with the number of defaults wrapped into those mortgage bundles and the banks re-selling foreclosed properties at 100k below loan balance. And there are lots of those. CDS is what put a lot of the big wall street institutions under. Many banks are just as deeply buried in those.

Looking at just the real estate fiasco alone for now. A real example. The bank carried a loan for 380k. The person defaulted with a 330k balance. The home is listed for sale. It sells for 112k. What happened to the difference? Did it just vanish? No, the bank eats the loss. It becomes and obligation carried against deposits. Which is why the deposit rates show a negative balance. Which is why they can't lend any money. Its been eaten up by the losses on foreclosed property.


Another clue. In the second article it said the banks don't have the money to lend. That is strange. Since savings has gone way up recently. Something the banks need in order to generate loans. Capital on hand. Based on that there should be plenty to go around at the current historic low rates. There isn't. What wasn't said is the banks are paying their own debts with tarp and covering other obligations with deposits. Which is why that one chart shows a negative balance. The banks now owe the people who deposited money in them. They spent that too. Thankfully the FDIC is around to cover it. Or are they? How much do they have to cover the potential losses. Not enough I'm afraid. All that is keeping a major bank run from occurring is people's confidence their money is safe. Truth is, it isn't.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...s.worries/index.html

updated 4:38 p.m. EST, Mon February 2, 2009

What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill

(CNN) -- On Monday, House Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:

The Senate is currently the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus bill.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

quote:

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

Uhh Ohh. Maybe Obama isn't so keen on the idea of amnesty after all.