(POL) Stimulus'ed out yet? You ain't seen nothin yet...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

If little has improved a year from now, then I'll be happy. It will mean we have stemmed the tide and things might actually start perking back up in another year or two. I thoroughly expect it to be significantly worse but I am also of the belief that without some intervention, it would be much much worse. Again, whether this is the right plan, that remains to be seen.

The writing is no longer on the wall- it's all around us- these are bad economic times and there is still no quick fix. Whether something needed to be done to stem the time- that's where I think we differ. But I think, if you still had a house, you could safely bet that in 12 months things will be worse no matter what as the problem doesn't have a quick or easy solution.

SI

Some good points. I should note that I'm speaking from a point of view where I'm honestly not affected that much by this recession and won't be affected outside of a total economic collapse. I'm not as panicked as most because my livelihood isn't in trouble due to the stupid moves both on Wall Street and in the Federal Government. I can certainly see how people who are more affected than I are willing to pull any panic rope available, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.

[Flasch186]

well said.

[ISiddiqui]

Flasch: I hope you've never linked to Paul Krugman.

[Flasch186]

nope.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

To all those blaming the press, what should they say? How should they portray 2.4 million job losses in the past four months? How should they portray a 4% GDP drop? How should they portray a financial sector that's full of large institutions that are insolvent in all but name?

And more importantly, how would any media changes help the economy rebound?

herd mentality. have more articles that suggest people are swarming to buy cars and other products because "lagging economy results in mega deals to be had!". if everyone thinks everyone else isn't concerned and this is one of those "this too shall pass" kind of things, then yeah, consumer confidence isn't eroded.

like i said - we *need* a bigger car. not want. we don't want to wait for an accident to happen in our small car with a baby in the backseat. now, because of all the sky is falling i read and hear i've told myself "yeesh, this really isn't a good time to add $300+ to our monthly bills". we've now decided to wait for our tax refunds and my wife's bonus to put more money down on the car and replenish our emergency fund. the negative press i've encountered has made me scared to do any major purchase, only because i see other people are hunkering down and "learning to live within their means".

even a hokey headline like "retail stores are doing their part to offset a stubborn economy with fantastic price cuts". or "Black Friday: In February???...Stores offer deep discounts to move inventory". these are more positive headlines that don't make me tremble in my bed cursing myself for considering buying a new car after we've paid our old one off.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The economy is based largely in faith that the system works, that the dollar bill the government handed me will actually be worth something. When people start to feel worried, they stop spending, hoard cash, etc. Or you get a run on bank accounts, which as posted above led to the government panic.

What I want the press to be is balanced. When good news happens, report it as good news, and don't bury it on page 3! When you print a story saying "people are getting too much credit", and then household debt drops for the first time in recorded history, don't bury that or report it as bad news.

As MBBF and Flasch are pointing out, economists often differ. This is what gives us the "OMG! Oil prices are rising!" stories followed by the "OMG! Oil prices are falling!" stories. The press loves to choose which ever economist takes the day's story and puts a negative spin on it and quote them. So people ALWAYS get a bad view of the economy, and that wears on you. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Press only prints bad spin on economic news, people get worried, economy slows down, press has more bad news to give, etc.

Let's take how they treat the stock market. They treat rises and falls in the indices as a measure of total wealth, when there is no wealth unitl you sell. So we see things like "stock portfolios wiped out!", when in fact the only people who actually lost money were those who bought high and sold low. Heck, I've got a mutual fund that is basically treading water right now, and I'm sitting tight waiting for it to go back up (and might dump more money in shortly). I lost all my potential profit that it built up over the last few years, but that's all it ever was, potential profit. And now any dividends or gains are buying additional shares cheap. But the media spins me as having lost tons of money, which is simply not true.

So the press helps shape the public perception of the economy, which can actually drive the economy, and since doom and gloom sells, they are helping drive it right off the cliff. Sure, the greedy folks who decided to set up all these questionable investments are the main culpable parties, but the press is helping ensure that we going off the cliff a lot faster than we should be and making it more difficult to recover.

this too.


i'm in mutual funds and we got some nice bargains and i wish i had some spare loot to invest cuz i'd do it right now and buy while prices are ridiculously low. i only started my 401k in january cuz my company changed their policy to immediate vesting and matching contributions dollar for dollar. i'm essentially getting free money that's immediately mine, whatever i put in gets automatically doubled. all that plus investing while prices are low (and not having any retirement funds wiped out since i wasn't doing 401k during the "good years") means i'm coming out ahead. things are looking good for me, retirement-wise. but to get back to the point i'd be jumping in this market with my cock and nuggets in my hand saying "woo hoo muthafucka!" the whole time. great time to be buying if you got the spare cash, which people probably don't LOL.

[Flasch186]

i do but Ive been getting buzz cuts the entire way down so Im certainly not looking to be the first one in. Im invested just not 100%.

[Anthony]

we don't invest, which means we don't get to get rich like dot com millionaires, but on the same hand we don't have to worry about our life savings disappearing. the ole "can't lose what you don't gamble" mantra.

[Young Drachma]

Ron Paul has some interesting insight on the stimulus bill.

[molson]

RE: Ron Paul

Sounds like the criticism of the Patriot Act. Nobody actually read it, they just voted for a vague idea.

[JPhillips]

Here's a really good article from Reaganite economist Bruce Bartlett on the lessons of the New Deal and why massive spending and the resulting deficit is appropriate now.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/sti..._bartlett.html

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Here's a really good article from Reaganite economist Bruce Bartlett on the lessons of the New Deal and why massive spending and the resulting deficit is appropriate now.

The Real Lesson Of The New Deal - Forbes.com

cool JPhil. Interesting find.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty funny snippit here. Evidently, NY RINO Chuck Schumer doesn't like some of the fine print in the bill he supported, which he likely didn't even read before he voted to pass it.......

Schumer's Second Thoughts (Or: This Is Why Reading Legislation Before Voting Is a Good Idea) - Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner on National Review Online

Schumer's Second Thoughts (Or: This Is Why Reading Legislation Before Voting Is a Good Idea) [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From Crain's:

Sen. Schumer has pledged to undo a provision included in the stimulus package that will make it nearly impossible for New York’s banks to hire foreign workers through the H-1B visa program.

The amendment to the stimulus bill, proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Chuck Grassley, D-Iowa, originally would have banned the visas for any company that received money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. A compromise lifted the ban, but companies will still be required to hire from the growing pool of laid-off American workers first. Advocates say that the mandate is so onerous that it will virtually stop banks from bringing foreign workers into the country.

According to a report released last year by the Partnership for New York City, roughly 13,000 workers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are here on H-1B visas. The top visa sponsors in the area are the very same banks that have received TARP money. Those banks also have significant overseas operations, says Kathy Wylde, and this provision will hurt most when the economy turns around and the banks look to hire talent to tap new markets.

“When they require someone with a language or other skill who they feel is the best person for the job, if they can’t bring them to New York, they will move the function,” says Wylde. “That’s what’s happened in the past when we’ve had a shortage of the H-1B visas.”

Since the bill was signed with the provision included, Schumer will need to undo it in another bill, which could be tough sledding.

“This is a counterproductive amendment that could hurt New York’s economy, and we are going to work hard to change it,” Schumer says.

[JPhillips]

NY RINO Chuck Schumer

?

[miked]

Do you even check anything before you post it?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?

My apologies. I meant to say a Republican conductor of the Unicorn Express.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

RNEINO?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

RNEINO?

I think I'm going to need to pull out my Rosetta Stone Politics software to get a translation here.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

R not even INO

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

R not even INO

We'll just agree to disagree. Schumer is a far cry from the senator he used to be from what I've seen. Some of his comments of late have left me scratching my head.

[JPhillips]

For God's sake man, check Schumer's party affiliation.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

We'll just agree to disagree. Schumer is a far cry from the senator he used to be from what I've seen. Some of his comments of late have left me scratching my head.

He's such a disgraceful Republican that he even calls himself a Democrat.

[JPhillips]

Schumer is to Republican as MBBF is to _____.

[Young Drachma]

I was gonna say "when the hell did the Senior Senator from New York become a REPUBLICAN?" I know us Yankee Republicans are a bit to the center and all, but damn, that's a hell of a centrist shift.

[ISiddiqui]

This last flurry of posts has been hilarious!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

LOL.....I crossed Specter for Schumer. I'll take the dunce cap for the day (or any other day).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

To the substance of the link, I find it hard to believe that anyone in Congress had really read the whole thing by the time they voted for it, which is indeed disconcerting. How long was the whole thing and how much time did they have?

[ISiddiqui]

Arlen Specter

Great Senator.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

To the substance of the link, I find it hard to believe that anyone in Congress had really read the whole thing by the time they voted for it, which is indeed disconcerting. How long was the whole thing and how much time did they have?

FWIW.....the campaign promise from Obama was that any bill would be posted on the internet for 5 days before a vote. At face value, I think that's a fabulous idea since it allows many watchdogs groups and constituents on both sides to peruse the document and find the crap that has gone through in previous administrations before being noticed after it was enacted.

The problem is that they didn't do that with this bill. If ANY bill needed 5 days to be reviewed with a fine tooth comb, it's a big bill like this.

BTW......I'm sure there are a lot of Americans who didn't see it as an oversight and we're happy to see those people get cut out of jobs. I personally find that to be short-sighted, but I know that 'America First' thinking exists.

[JPhillips]

I don't think the President has the authority to tell Congress how to handle it's business. I also don't care whether or not each member of Congress has read the entire bill, that's why they have staff members. Now it is a problem when they don't have a grasp of the substance, but I don't think it's reasonable or necessarily beneficial to have everyone read each bill word for word.

That said, I hope the five day or something similar happens as I would like bills to be made public in their final form before they're voted on. For me the problem isn't lack of knowledge during the House or Senate versions, it's the negotiated reconciliation bill that's often the problem. It's pretty easy to hide corruption in a bill that only has hours between printing and final passage.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't believe that any amount of staffers could have been able to cohesively read and report on this bill in the amount of time they were given. Those who voted for it did so because they were told to, and those who voted against it did so because they were told to. It's not Obama's fault, but it certainly speaks to the naivete of those hoping for change from politics as usual.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I don't believe that any amount of staffers could have been able to cohesively read and report on this bill in the amount of time they were given. Those who voted for it did so because they were told to, and those who voted against it did so because they were told to. It's not Obama's fault, but it certainly speaks to the naivete of those hoping for change from politics as usual.

Pretty sure I agree with this. I think Reid and Pelosi have been the bullies thus far. Obama likely would love to keep his campaign promise, but the Congressional leaders are pushing back and he's backed down to keep in their good graces. The problem is that Obama is the one who's taking the hit when it happens.

I really wish we would have had a similar waiting period in the Bush and Clinton administrations. There was a lot of crap that snuck through in the same way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think Reid and Pelosi have been the bullies thus far.

The Republicans are no better. Their "hold the line" and all-vote-no policy is pretty transparent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The Republicans are no better. Their "hold the line" and all-vote-no policy is pretty transparent.

Might want to include my entire quote next time. I said the exact same thing later in my quote. You were disagreeing with someone who agrees with you.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Not disagreeing per se, actually, but elaborating my point about everyone just being "whipped" into shape on this.

And upon reading your quote I don't actually see anything stating that, but whatever.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

And upon reading your quote I don't actually see anything stating that, but whatever.

I mentioned all the crap in the Clinton and Bush administrations. For the most part, that was Republicans passing that junk through.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Nah, I'm talking about Cantor and their ilk and the united front they've thrown up. While I'm sure there's some actually ideological disagreement there, the manner they've gone about it is very transparent.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Nah, I'm talking about Cantor and their ilk and the united front they've thrown up. While I'm sure there's some actually ideological disagreement there, the manner they've gone about it is very transparent.

Exactly. They're mirroring the minority Democrat stance from the first 6 years of the Bush Administration. They've just changed roles.

[Buccaneer]

Is all-vote-no the same as all-vote-yes-without-reading?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I suppose that voting for something you haven't read is worse than voting against something you haven't read, but they're both symptomatic of the same thing.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Is all-vote-no the same as all-vote-yes-without-reading?

Close, except the latter is a good thing!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting news coming out of FoxNews. They had sued to get all of the documentation on the initial $350B bank bailout. Here's the info.......

FOX Business Sues Treasury for Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information Act Requests - FOXBusiness.com

They are reporting this afternoon that they won the lawsuit. This means a lot of documents detailing where the first $350B went will now be available for public consumption. It'll be interesting to see what is found in the fine print.

[DaddyTorgo]

wow - that's actually awesome!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting news coming out of FoxNews. They had sued to get all of the documentation on the initial $350B bank bailout. Here's the info.......

FOX Business Sues Treasury for Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information Act Requests - FOXBusiness.com

They are reporting this afternoon that they won the lawsuit. This means a lot of documents detailing where the first $350B went will now be available for public consumption. It'll be interesting to see what is found in the fine print.

Hopefully that includes documentation on those hired to manage the bailout funds and their compensation.

[Flasch186]

agreed, probably the best thing Fox NEWS has ever done.

[Raiders Army]

I think this is great idea and shows Obama's steadfastness towards transparency: Recovery.gov

* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.

State and Local Fiscal Relief - Prevents state and local cuts to health and education programs and state and local tax increases.

Unfortunately, in the small print Tax Relief is actually $165 Billion out of the $787 Billion. When you take away the Infrastructure and Science, Protecting the Vulnerable, Education and Training, and Energy, you're left with $165 Billion in Tax Relief. Infrastructure and Science (how are those really related?) get 76% as much as Tax Relief. I've glanced through the 400-some pages and for so many words, there's little detail in where this is targeted.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting news coming out of FoxNews. They had sued to get all of the documentation on the initial $350B bank bailout. Here's the info.......

FOX Business Sues Treasury for Failure to Respond to Freedom of Information Act Requests - FOXBusiness.com

They are reporting this afternoon that they won the lawsuit. This means a lot of documents detailing where the first $350B went will now be available for public consumption. It'll be interesting to see what is found in the fine print.

More power to them.

If they could actually report it with a semblance of fairness, they could be a valuable watchdog on this.
(You'll have to forgive me if I think there's a 0% chance of that happening)

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hoooo boy! Another spending bill!

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill - Yahoo! Finance

I'm going to stop feeling bad about my credit card bill.

[Flasch186]

youre right, MBBF, Ive given up. We should never spend, ever. Not on the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, not on anything really. Where were you over the last 8 years.

You mustve loved Clinton and his ability to balance the budget right?

Anyways, Ill bet the bill has some stuff I agree with in it and some i dont but in case you havnt heard, were in a deflationary cycle....kind shoulda been up in arms when were inflating like crazy, right?

[Fidatelo]

Every time Flasch mentions the deflationary cycle we are supposedly in I laugh out loud. If the recession doesn't cost me my job, he just might.