The new "it" fabric? Burlap.

Yup, burlap. As in the material that potato sacks are made of.

Call it a sign of the times, or "recession chic" or what have you, but for those who thought burlap was only relegated to Depression-era farm children swathed in coarse, itchy togas, think again. Burlap is back in a big way -- and not only that, if designer goods are your modus operandi, be prepared to spend big.

How big? Try about $1,400 for the Miu Miu burlap ensemble (above), complete with pink streak of spray paint, of course. I think the streak lends a certain je ne sais quoi, don't you? Or this dress, also about $1,400.

The New York Times is calling this new fad "bread-line chic". Clever. I call it "the Emperor has no clothes" syndrome. If you want a pair of matching shoes for your itchy little dress (move over LBD, the ILD is the new kid in town), then why not try Miu Miu's $600 burlap pumps? But why should we stop there. Why not, say, use the coarse fabric to upholster high-end furniture? Oh wait, that's already been done. I'm just waiting for a burlap bikini. Perhaps I should fashion one once Love and I get through cooking all the potatoes in our kitchen.

Seeing this I can't help but be reminded of that I Love Lucy episode, entitled "Lucy Gets a Paris Gown." In it Lucy decides to go on a hunger strike until Ricky agrees to buy her a designer dress, which he saves for until he finds out Ethel has been smuggling Lucy food. Ricky decides to teach Lucy a lesson by putting together a haphazard burlap dress and passing it off as a Paris original. Lucy believes him and wears it proudly. Hilarity (of course) ensues, especially because this is how ridiculous she looked:

Vogue's cat is out of the bag

Not like you sign up for mag subscriptions in the hope that the free swag you get will actually be quality (right??), but if the driving factor in becoming a Vogue reader was the new purse you were promised, you may have found yourself a little...underwhelmed.

According to the New York Post, wannabe Anna Wintours hoping to score free glamour with a Vogue Magazine subscription need not apply. You see, in the Vogue ad, the Post says the bag appears to be red leather with a crocodile embossment and a clasp with over-the-shoulder straps.

"Instead what shows up in the mail, in a standard 8 in. by 10 in. polybag, is a red canvass bag with "pleather" handles about the size of a small gym bag. The bag also has "pleather" patches on the bottom corners and a zipper closure."

Classy!

What happens when the empty nest isn't so empty?

Here's a guest post from my friend, freelance writer Trisha Wagner. Enjoy!

Do you remember the first time you moved away from home? The feeling of excitement, independence and freedom? The joy and trepidation of finally striking out on your own with no parents looking over your shoulder or bossing you around? I know I remember those feelings well and nothing ever compares to moving into your first place. Now imagine fast forwarding five, ten or even fifteen years and having to face the fact that you can no longer make it on your own. While it has become somewhat common for some college grads to bounce back to the family homestead until they get “established” the current state of the economy is forcing grown men and women out of their homes and back to mom and dad's place.

With the tough economic times that we are facing, this situation is becoming a reality for many families. To say the least this arrangement can be stressful for both parties and it is important to set some ground rules to prevent both of you from falling back into your old roles. The following tips can help you get in and out of the family home with the least amount of disruption to all involved.

Set Rules Before Moving Home. This is important for both the parents and the adult child to establish what is expected of all parties. If the move home is a result of a financial hardship, agreeing on what will be expected of you will go a long way toward a peaceful co-existence. Due to the current state of the economy your parents may want to help you financially but find themselves unable due to their own financial situation. Both parties need to agree and feel comfortable discussing these financial responsibilities before you move home.

Be Respectful Of Privacy. Let's face it, you have grown accustomed to having your own space and so have your parents. Remember this is their home and just because they want to help you doesn't mean they will relish having another person (even their child) hanging on the sofa all day. Be respectful of their privacy and the daily “routines” that we all have.

Have A Plan. Remember moving back home with the folks should be a temporary arrangement to help you get back on your feet. This means if you are unemployed you should continue to look for work. If you are currently working, you should be extra mindful of your spending habits. You don't want to be a mooch, cost your parents more money or spend your paycheck on fabulous new shoes. Make the most out of this opportunity to get your finances in order by saving as much money as you can possibly afford. This may mean making sacrifices or adjusting your lifestyle but that is the reality of your life at the moment.

Learn From Your Mistakes. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. Successful people however learn from those mistakes. There are many reasons why an adult child may be forced to move home. Some situations are out of your control (loss of employment or major medical issues). Other circumstances may have been preventable had you managed your finances better. Don't let past missteps stop you from moving forward toward your financial goals; establish where you went wrong and make the changes necessary to prevent the same mistakes from happening in the future.

While no one wants to move back home under the watchful eyes of their parents, certain situations may leave you with no other options. At a time when your pride might be hurting don't forget to be thankful and appreciative that you have parents and a home to fall back on-- not everyone is as fortunate.

Trisha Wagner is a freelance writer for DepositAccounts.com where you can compare rates of deposit accounts from dozens of banks in one place. Trisha writes regularly on the topics of personal finance and savings accounts.

Have discounts gone the way of leggings?

Were discounted designer duds out before they were even in, much like leggings that were so 17 seasons ago the minute they re-debuted for the first time since the early '90s? The jetsetting, I-step-on-the-heads-of-the-middle-class-on-my-way-to-tea-at-the-Ritz seem to think so. After all, if everyone else can also buy a $3,000 Dolce and Gabbana dress (albeit heavily marked down for us normal folk), than what would distinguish them from us? It would be utterly blasphemy, this near-incestuous melting pot of classes, from the very poor to the very rich, all buying the same things and festering in uncalled-for solidarity. I shiver at the thought.

But you see, that's what would happen if This Economy continues to take its toll on poor designers like Eileen Fisher, Oscar de la Renta and Versace, who it seems would prefer that department stores go bankrupt rather then have to slash prices in order to keep peddling the very designer goods that so many of us covet as an escape from the confines of mid-tier stores like The Gap, et. al. Do the Anna Wintours of the world have a point? If prices were slashed mercilessly, like the sad peeps at Rite Aid sitting restless and 50% off post-Easter, their once-vibrant pink coats now a faded shade of sour pepto bismol, would the playing ground become more even, thus upsetting the equilibrium of the world? Would it all really matter? Does there need to be a defining line -- in this case, made up of obnoxiously unattainable couture clothing that I admit I really, really want -- that separates the successful from the striving, the haves from the have-nots?

If This Economy can absolutely bury the oldest of what we thought were bullet-proof financial institutions (aurevoir, Lehman Bros.), and pick apart and plunder the most notable of giant law firms, pummeling laid off partners and associates in its undertow (aren't these people all supposed to be "recession-proof"?), then surely the economic tsunami can -- and should -- do something as insignificant as lower what are -- let's face it -- purely ridiculous and inflated clothing prices connoting a higher-end lifestyle we all lust after.

Does a full-price, $1,200 Carolina Herrera dress have any more value than, say, the knockoff of said dress at Macy's? Both sides of the class line are beginning to ponder that question, especially the side that was duped into paying full price for it (ahem, Ritz Carlton tea-goers.)

According to The Wall Street Journal, the price swings of designer goods have "confused" high-end customers (poor things), leading them to question the real value of their purchases. Apparently those in this group feel duped for having paid full price.

Shortly after Nancy Novogrod paid full price at a department store for a pair of spring Jil Sander slacks, the editor of Travel + Leisure Magazine got an email saying the store's spring sale was under way. "Spring sale?" Ms. Novogrod said when New Yorkers were still shivering in mid-March. "That's not buyer remorse. That's buyer rage."

Oh how I feel your plight, Ms. Novogrod. (Hold on a second, I need to toss my Target clothes in the laundry. Ok, back.) And so, once the rich feel ripped off (gasp), then of course the designers are left to bear the brunt of the backlash, which has recently caused many to demand being left out of department stores' sales.

"All our brands are taking great care to ensure that what happened in November will not happen again," Paola Milani tells the WSJ. Milani is a spokeswoman for Gucci Group, which owns Bottega Veneta, Yves Saint Laurent, Gucci and other brands. And what happened in November was that it was the first time designers saw their merchandise so drastically marked down by the retailers who carried their goods. "The idea is to maintain pricing coherence in the regions in which our products are sold regardless of channel of distribution."

The article states that the luxury brands want to control when they take discounts and on which products. And the deals will likely be less sweeping. Why does that not surprise me...and make me feel somewhat left out. Oh wait, it's because I can't readily flick my debit card over the cashier's counter whenever I get the slightest notion to buy a new coat or handbag costing over $1,000. Come on, Economy, work your magic in the sale section of this brunette on a budget's nearest Bloomingdale's...

Is grad school worth it in This Economy?

It's not breaking news that (in general), if you get a higher education degree, you make more money. But a writer over at Slate decided to test this theory recently by taking her reporting to the masses of 20-somethings who are contemplating whether or not going to grad school is worth it in This Economy. What she found is that though more school is usually an unbeatable bet in the long term, it is not looking that way to a lot of students in the here and now. One respondent, in particular, wrote to her with:

"I have a B.S. in sociology, and its value bears a strong similarity to its initials."

Ouch. Then again, what do you expect when you major in sociology? (Kidding, kidding.) According to the article, it seems plenty of students appreciate school as a refuge from the dreaded job market but are wary of the immediate payoff.

Look at student loans, the opportunity cost of taking two (business) or four (law) or eight (medicine) years off of your working life, add in a horde of other people with the same qualifications as you who are competing for a handful of available jobs and it's easy to see just how much the job market in these professions looks like a bubble that is about to burst. [Actually, law school is three years.]

To be fair, the story does mention that economists across the board dispute these points. "When things recover, it's going to be the highly skilled who are still in greatest demand (as has been true for the last three decades)," David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tells Slate. "So, for someone considering engineering, medicine, computer science, economics, law, biology, etc., I would say 'go.' ... The recession makes education look like a better deal than ever because the opportunity cost of investing in your human capital has not been this low in quite some time."

But even the traditional safe havens in the job market, like becoming a lawyer, aren't so safe anymore. (Love complains about legal layoffs across the U.S. on a weekly basis, and let me tell you people, from all the info he shows me, it's a scary, scary time to pursue a legal career.) According to the Slate reporter, she "also heard from law school graduates with $200,000 in debt who wonder what they were thinking as firms downsize and implode." MIT's David Autor response? "As for the law degree being underwater: Lawyers may get their shoes wet during the recession, but high school grads can't even see the surface they are so far down," he says.

So the question remains: Is higher education still worth it? I'm of the mind that education cannot hurt you. I have my Master's and although I'm sure I could have gotten as far as I am in my career now without the higher education I traversed through, my degree is an added perk on my resume and in the training that's gotten me to this point; therefore, I have no regrets. It may be harder to find a job now for someone with, say, an MBA (students on a budget can consider an MBA online to an affordable degree) or degree in a tech-related field, but once This Economy turns around, I do think the highly skilled/educated folk will be the first to cross the threshhold into the new job landscape.

Do any of you have your graduate degrees and wish (at this point) that you could just give them back? If you went on after college, did you think grad school was a waste of time? If you opted to not pursue a grad program, what was the biggest reason?

New unemployment data takes us back to the 80s

Still got your job? Lucky you.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that the economy lost 663,000 jobs in March, bringing the total amount of job losses to 5.1 million and the unemployment rate to 8.5 percent, the worst since 1983.

Yup, 1983, when I was but a wee one-year-old youngin', grooving to Culture Club's "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me" in a babyseat in my parent's yellow Volkswagon bug (we're from California).

The Labor department reported today that had part-time and discouraged workers been factored in, the unemployment rate would have been 15.6 percent in March, which would have been the highest on record since 1994. And move over France: Today's report also highlighted that the average work week in March dropped to 33.2 hours, a new record low.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, told the Associated Press: "It's an ugly report and April is going to be equally as bad." Time to brace for those April showers in more ways than one.

Oh and if you want to be Debbie Downer and drop a little unemployment trivia tidbit at your next cocktail party: Since the recession began in December 2007, two-thirds of the 5.1 million jobs in total that have been lost have occurred in the last five months.

SNL solves the economic crisis

An oldie but a goodie. Oh Steve Martin. Given the right material, you've still got it. Especially when it comes to espousing money-management wisdom.

Would you rather win America's Next Top Model or a Nobel Prize?

A new poll out yesterday sheds a startling light on some women and certain priorities.

Oxygen Media released a new poll surveying 18- to 34-year-old women about outer versus inner beauty and, shockingly enough, 25% of women said they'd rather win the top spot on America's Next Top Model over winning a Nobel Prize. At least it was only a quarter of respondents. I have a gut feeling this 25% doesn't remember how winning ANTM does not guarantee anything except a D-List spot on VH1's "The Surreal Life" (hello, Adrian Curry).

I wonder how this compares to similar survey results taken in past decades like the '50s, '60s and '70s. Though the current 25% is a tad disappointing, I have a feeling that number would have been much higher in the '40s and '50s if women back then were asked if they'd rather win, say, the Miss America pageant over a Nobel. Just sayin'.

What's more interesting in the results is that 25% of women in the Oxygen poll also said they would not be willing to shave their heads to save the life of a stranger. Sad. I wonder if this is the same 25% who have their eye on ANTM's top prize?

"Recessionistas" need not wear jellies

Sigh. Just when I thought the Today Show "fashion on a budget" clip with Bobbie Thomas wasn't bad enough, we now have another video clip from Mtv's new House of Style, hosted by my former sophomore year high school crush's (Leonardo DiCaprio's) current girlfriend, Israeli model Bar Rafaeli. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother setting your DVR, as it was so much cooler in the '90s. But I digress.

In this clip, aside from learning that one of the "must haves" this spring are $175 high-heeled jellies (yes, jellies), there's a segment where model Jessica Stam takes you shopping in her closet to teach every recessionista how to get the most out of what you already have. Sounds good in theory, except Jessica's closet is a little different than the average girl's. Her pointers? Set up a bag swap, where you and your friends can trade $1,500 handbags (like the Marc Jacobs one she is holding) betwixt one another. Fun!

Other tips include:

• She "loves" white t-shirts, and suggests pairing them with black skirts. Groundbreaking.
• "Hitting up" your brother and/or dad's closets for baggy flannel shirts you could wear as jackets in the summer. (The last time I wore flannel was when I pined after Jordan Catalano, endlessly listened to Nirvana and thought it would be so cool to move to Seattle and learn the intricacies of brewing good coffee. This was junior high, 1994, people. Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the flannel comeback, and there's really no reason to wear your father's and brother's clothing.)
• Cut your jeans into shorts (i.e., cut-offs). Revolutionary (and tacky).

I'm still waiting for a really good segment on dressing well on a budget. So far I've been disappointed with what I've seen. Kind of the same feeling Angela Chase had when she found out Jordan cheated on her with Rayanne Graph. Okay, maybe not that disappointed, but you get the point.

To see the House of Style clip, visit Jezebel.

One list you don't want to be on

When I arrived in Vegas last week for a 4-day romp of pina coladas, dancing and pathetic gambling attempts at the nearest slot machine, the one thing I didn't think was "Man, Vegas feels...empty." Maybe it was because I didn't stray far from the strip, or maybe I was too preoccupied with all the divine shopping and food (dinner at Tao = fabulous!!). Regardless, at the end of the day I was yet a lowly tourist, passing through to enjoy the best of what the city had to offer on one street. If you take into account what's going on outside of the Luxors and Bellagios, though, the state of things isn't so rosy and pina colada-tinged.

According to Forbes, which released a list of the 15 emptiest cities, ones central to sagging industries are suffering the most. This is obvious, especially with cities like Detroit, where automakers (and all the other industrial companies that depend on them) are struggling to stay above water. But cities like Miami and Chicago also made the list, which surprised me. Number 2 on the list? Yup, that'd be Las Vegas, which I assume depends heavily on tourism and company conferences and events to bolster the local economy.

Being "on the list" is something all of us usually strive for (oh how very VIP sounding it is), but this is one list I wouldn't want to be on, as the likelihood of finding employment is bleaker. I'm curious: Are you on the list?:

Detroit, MI
Las Vegas, NV
Atlanta, GA
Greensboro, NC
Dayton, OH
Phoenix/Mesa/Scottsdale, AZ
Orlando, FL
Kansas City, MO/Kansas City, KS
Indianapolis, IN/Jacksonville, FL
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Miami Beach, FL
Chicago/Naperville/Joliet, IL
Tampa/St. Petersburg/Clearwater, FL
Bakersfield, CA
Charlotte/Gastonia/Concord, NC/Cincinnati, OH/Middletown, KY

If so, how has it affected community morale?

Recession not an excuse to go crazy with glue gun

I'm a devout believer that being fashionable is something anyone can do on any budget. While I drool over Burberry trench coats and the current object of my obsession, the Chloe Kerala bag, I also kneel at the altar of Target and have been known to "make it work" at Forever 21.

But there is a difference between being practical and being a zipper- and double-stick-tape-wielding crazy person, fresh off the Home Ec. boat. Behold yesterday's Today Show segment about "DIY solutions" to looking fashionable on a budget this spring, spearheaded by one Bobbie Thomas, an alleged "style editor":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I think this delectable morsel of a clip can teach all of us on a budget a few lessons about looking fashionable and not foolish:

Do:

• Shop online before you hit stores to find the best deals on that cute A-line skirt or little black dress you've had your eye on. Doing your homework before you leave the house will save you time, and inevitably, money. You can take solace in knowing you really did find the best deal possible on your chic new heels, because Google told you so, after all.
• Play up the season's trends through accessories (such as scarves, necklaces, chunky rings and/or a new clutch), and not pricey, trendy pieces that will look so last season in about, oh, 3 months. Please, just put down the leather fringe. This isn't "Can't Buy Me Love" and no one looks good in a fringe-trimmed jacket, no matter how much you love young Patrick Dempsey.
• Take the time to browse the sales racks, but if you really want to invest money in your wardrobe, always spend more on your classic items, such as a khaki trench coat, slacks, pencil skirt, et. al. These are timeless staples in your wardrobe that will stand as the foundation to all your cheaper, "throw away" clothing.

Don't:

• Throw zippers all over your clothing and call it art. You are not Andy Warhol, nor are you Philip Lam. And no one wants to be the one to have to tell you that your exposed zipper fell off, um, about a block ago.
• Hot glue leather fringe on anything, Pocahontas. This includes purses, shoes, or frumpy black cardigans.
• Roll up one of your dress sleeves and think someone will believe your dress is Missoni and not Marshall's. A kind friend will probably begin tugging at your sleeve, much like they would help you if your tag was unwittingly sticking out.
• Listen to Bobbie Thomas.

Simple is the new black

My boss sent me a video today that made me laugh out loud and almost spit chai latte all over my company computer (which would have made me laugh harder, now that I think about it). The monologue is hilarious because there are fundamental truths in the humor, especially for those of us who believe there is a pervading sense of entitlement within our generations.

I've never heard of this Louis CK comedian, but a friend of Conan's is a friend of mine:



Basically, everything is amazing today (with medicine, air travel, Internet, etc.) and no one's happy even though they are "non-contributing zeros," so Louis CK thinks that maybe it's a blessing in disguise that the foundations of capitalism are being shattered -- that way, we'll all be appreciative of when things get good again.

Economy rocks it like it's 1997

Stocks went into freefall mode again today (this is becoming so cliche), dropping to levels last seen in 1997 -- the same year we were awkwardly coming out of our "ugly duckling" phase freshman year of high school, obsessed with unattainably hot guys and thought "Daria" was the coolest show, like, ever.

The Dow fell 3.4% to close at a staggering 7,114.94. For those unfamiliar with this hodgepodge of numbers, last year the Dow was at a healthy 8,000+. At 7,500 last week, the last vestiges of still-employed investment bankers were retching into their cubicle trashcans. At 7,114, well, let's just say it ain't pretty -- and word on the streets is there's still room for it to get worse.

Enter the Treasury Department. Today the Treasury announced it will launch a new, revamped bank bailout program that would include the option of allowing the government to increase its ownership in financial institutions. Translation: The government wants more of a say in how banks are run, because they are (obviously) doing a crappy job thus far. As you can see by today's steep stock market slide, this news did little to bolster investor confidence.

But there's a difference between the government running a bank, and the government having a say in how it runs itself. The first would be nationalization (which was a hot stock market rumor last week, but turned out to be false when the Obama administration said there would be no bank nationalization and that "private banking is the way to go").

The Treasury said today that beginning on Wednesday, the 20 largest U.S. banks will be required to undergo a new “stress test," which will determine whether each institution has enough capital to survive any further economic spirals.

More details surrounding the stress test will be released on Wednesday by the Treasury, though it did divulge today that if any banks fail the test, the government will require it to raise capital from private sources. If any bank is incapable of raising the money, the bank will be required to swap out the government’s existing, non-voting preferred shares and replace them with new preferred shares that are convertible to common stock with voting rights. Um, what? Basically, as I said earlier, this will give the Obama administration a say -- and not complete governing power -- in the business of each bank, if it comes down to that.

...And milk prices continue to fall

We remember the days when buying a gallon of milk was about as much (if not more) than a gallon of gasoline. Shudders, while flashing back to daydreams of filling car up with milk, eating bowl of cereal with crude oil. Thankfully milk prices have fallen, thanks to waning demand for the product. But wait -- you ask -- does no one drink milk anymore with cookies? Eat ice cream? Make pudding? It's not quite that dire...yet.

Demand has fallen for milk because of the limping economy (i.e., people are buying cheaper alternatives), and this in turn has deeply hurt dairy farmers, which are selling their dairy cows in droves to slaughterhouses to make up for the lack of money coming in from unsold milk.

As prices are falling, feed costs remain high, and farmers are getting back only about half of their costs. Obviously, that's not sustainable. As a result, nearly a fifth of America's 9.3 million dairy cows might be turned into steaks and hamburgers this year.

Things I don't want to think about the next time I my quarter-pounder at In 'N Out.

The situation is only projected to get worse:

In 2008, the average price of 100 pounds of milk traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was $17.44. Now the price is just above $10, and most observers think it will go even lower. In December, the price of commodity cheese fell by 40% in just a couple of weeks.

So what's the best fix for the milk melodrama? You guessed it -- a bailout! This, in the form of stronger price supports and government purchases of surplus milk. Think bailout prayers will be answered? [TheBigMoney]

What the stimulus bill means for you

Not a day goes by now without some talk about the "stimulus bill" being discussed by very important people in some very important chamber deep in a crevice of the Capitol building. But with so much news on the plan, the details can become muddy and confusing and before we know it we're completely lost and ready to top off our glass of Pinot Noir and take the dog for another walk before we kneel at the doorstep of Thomas.gov, take a deep breath, and start all over in trying to understand it all.

Of course, the most vital info you need to know about the stimulus bill can be boiled down to just five itty-bitty words: How does it affect me? Simple question, but traversing through all the mucky language can be harrowing. Luckily, that's why you read moi, right? ;)

I've found a fabulous article by the New York Times that does the best job I've seen of simplifying the legislation and informing you of how the stimlulus affects, well...you. Most importantly in regards to:

Income Tax: In 2009 and 2010, there is a tax credit of up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples filing their taxes jointly. You calculate your credit, subtracted from other federal taxes you owe, by taking 6.2 percent of your earned income.

Your eligibility for this credit begins to phase out if you’re an individual with an adjusted gross income over $75,000 or a couple with income higher than $150,000.

Unemployment: Normally, you pay federal income taxes on federal unemployment benefits. In 2009, however, you won’t have to pay taxes on the first $2,400 in benefits you receive.

Health Insurance: If you get fired, your company is required, thanks to a law known as Cobra, to allow you to pay to keep your health insurance, generally for up to 18 months.

The problem is, it can cost you $1,000 a month or more to keep the coverage.

Now, the federal government will subsidize 65 percent of the premium for up to nine months. To be eligible, you need to have been forced out of your job between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009. Also, your income in the year you receive the subsidy cannot be more than $125,000 for individuals or $250,000 for married couples filing their taxes jointly.

If you lost your job after Sept. 1, 2008, and declined Cobra coverage, you’ll now get another chance. Call your former company in the next two months to find out how this will work.

Social Security: In 2009 a number of retirees and disabled people, including Social Security recipients, will receive a $250 refundable tax credit. The money would arrive within 120 days of the bill’s signing.

First-Time Home Buyer Credit: First-time home buyers are eligible for a refundable tax credit equal to 10 percent of the purchase price of their home, up to $8,000, if they made the purchase after Jan. 1, 2009, but before Dec. 1, 2009. (This gem is for singles who make under $75,000, or a married couples who make under $150,000).

Don't forget the language isn't final, but the above is the gist of it all. Ah, I love the sound of money in my pocket (thank you U.S. government!). [NY Times via CNBC]

And now, a word from the economy

Investors have waited with baited breath the last few days to hear of what will become of the bank bailout plan. A go? No go? Give us something, government! All eyes were on Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this morning, when he took the podium and delivered the highly anticipated bailout details.....aaaaaand the stock market plunged. Watching the indexes alternate between tiny rises and lower drops as Geithner spoke was like watching a heart monitor tied to an ailing pulse. Just. beat. harder. It turns out there is no quick fix or bandaid, and the fact that the process -- like most processes, actually -- won't be fast and easy dented the market today. If you missed Geithner's press conference, or started spacing out on his pointy, elf-like ears about three minutes into the speech, here's a quick runup of his solutions:

• The creation of a "bad bank": A joint Treasury and Federal Reserve program, insured by the FDIC and financed by private investors, that will buy up cruddy mortgage-related assets from banks.

• Expanding the Federal Reserve's existing $200 billion program to between $500 billion and $1 trillion in order to unfreeze the credit market. I smell higher taxes!

• Using the remaining $350 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to inject ailing banks with capital, which, while it seemed like a bad idea on the first go-round, has become necessary since the banking system is basically insolvent.

• A $50 billion initiative aimed at stemming home foreclosures, the details of which will be announced later in the week. [Reuters via Daily Intel]

All of a sudden my "crazy" idea of moving to Italy and selling flowers out of a cart doesn't seem so crazy after all, hmm??

Another 15 bite the dust?

One of the most fascinating things about 2009 -- aside from the fact that I'm hitting the ripe age of 27 in April, and thereby officially old -- is how many retailers will go belly up in the rising economic tide. Perhaps it's the Machiavelli in me. There's obviously saturation in every retail niche, some more than others, and the current malaise seems to be just the concoction needed to vet out the superfluous. Who knew how unnecessary Linens 'N Things was in the face of many a Bed Bath & Beyond? Or a Target, for that matter? Even with the undeniable allure of office supplies and our addiction to Post-Its and personalized paper clips, even Office Max couldn't stay afloat, what with a Staples seemingly on every corner.

So which companies will fail to survive what's started out to be a difficult 2009? U.S. News placed their bets on 15 firms they don't see living past another year. Among them? Sbarro, Six Flags, Blockbuster and Claire's Accessories. Claires?! The mecca of uber-affordable jewelry? Now where will we duck shamefully into in every mall, our heads low among the throngs of teeny-boppers, while we fish for giant cocktail rings we'll eventually tell our friends we bought at expensive places like Bloomingdales? One more lie, squashed. Thanks economy.

Another possible casualty they predict? Krispy Kreme Donuts. "The donuts might be good, but Krispy Kreme overestimated Americans' appetite - and that's saying something." [U.S. News]