I thought we were saved?

[audtatious]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29333865/

Didn't these people get the memo? They are surely not showing signs of Hope and that's depressing.

9% unemployment rate this year, economy to shrink by 1.9%, backslide of 5% per quarter, etc etc etc

Why are things not going better now? We have passed two Pelosi stimulus packages that were supposed to solve all these problems.

[OriginalWheelman]

Our shipment of hope has arrived on the fail boat.

[audtatious]

At this point I wonder if the DOW will be in the 6000 range by the end of the week.

[Jacko3]

It takes at least 3 - 6 months to see the effect of any stimulus money. We call that economic lag---an ever present problem with manipulating any controlling any economy.

Certainly, Obama is no savior, and he doesn't claim to be one. After all, he inherited the worst economy in decades from Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...lskip

[EmKayThree]

The economy is turning to crap because of dumb@$$ greedy people. Big companies always wanting to cut costs everywhere, except their million dollar paychecks...

Who was that guy that said,"My salary was Zero all of last year" <--- too bad he got like 6 million in bonuses.

On top of that, no country really wants to by things from America except the Technological stuff, but even then that costs top dollar because of what we pay employees including benefits.

It was only inevitable that this situation would occur.

Then there's the whole, "Don't raise taxes."Where else are they going to get the money!?

[audtatious]

What economic relief have we seen from the first bailout?

You keep throwing Bush under the bus which is what a lot of us on this forum have an issue with. Pelosi and gang wrote each of these stimulus packages and Bush was stupid enough to sign the first one. Congress was "owned" by the Dems for the last two years of the Bush Presidency and while he did make some stupid choices I simply do not understand why you and others like to turn a blind eye to the big picture.

[audtatious]

Then there's the whole, "Don't raise taxes."Where else are they going to get the money!?

So, penalizing those who provide jobs is a good thing? The majority of employment here is based upon the small business owner, not large corporations. SBO's did not get a break in the stimulus package, they are being pressed to offer healthcare and are being penalized for success. How is any of that good for the economy? History has also shown that lowering taxes will actually increase revenue to the Gov as a whole while also giving "Joe Blow" more money in his paycheck. How is that a bad thing either? You think the $15/wk that people will see additionally with their paychecks is going to help anything at all?

[Jacko3]

I haven't thrown Bush under the bus. I have merely elaborated on the source of some problems. I provided links to support those claims, however immaterial anyone might feel about those links. Is it a sin to take a stand with facts to back up my stand? If you go to an earlier comment I made on another topic, where i ran over Clinton, you also and still continued to complained. Whther I speak badly of a democratic or a republican, I am gonna get a complaint.

Anyways, a Stimulus Plan is a vastly different from a Bail out, while both may be forms of governmental expenditures. Some aspects of a bail out DO NOT necessarily have to involve physical expenditure of money. Simply, providing assurances backed by the full-faith of the federal govt in some financial investments, CAN be all that is needed. In the case of a stimulus plan, all of it is actual money being spent.

The idea is to trigger confidence by jolting the economy as with a pacemaker does in a failing heart.

[audtatious]

I have not been following your posts on here, just making a correlation to your "inherited from Bush" comment. Obama inherited the issue from the Gov as a whole. While Bush definitely has culpability to the problem it simply can't be all thrown at his feet as some try and do.

You are correct, the stimulus package is supposed to stimulate the economy and not be a bailout plan. I have a problem with the plan that was signed as there seems to be very little in there that would actually simulate anything but bigger Gov.

[Jacko3]

Inheritance can come from several sources. In the case of US Presidents or Canadian Prime Ministers, inheritance is sequential from one Presidential predecessor to the other. This means, the only obvious form of inheritance that can be attributed to Bush would be from Clinton. And the only form of inheritance attributed to Obama would certainly be from Bush.

I couldn't possibly suggest that Clinton inherited anything from Regan, can I, or that Obama inherited problems from Clinton (with the exception of his many Clinton administration staff)?


Modified by Jacko3 at 12:13 PM 2/23/2009

[audtatious]

I would tend to agree in simplistic terms if you only see Gov based upon the President in charge at the time (I agree, it does make things easier that way I guess). There is also the "his watch" syndrome where anything that happens during that Presidents watch is his fault alone (say, 9/11). In that case, then you would be correct, it was Bush's fault alone just as anything that has happened since Jan 20th is Obamas fault alone.

There is lots of history in my statements based upon online arguments with people over the last 8 years

[Jacko3]

I agree with you simply becasue the President of the US (POTUS) is the CEO of USA, Inc. What happens on his watch is his alone to bear.

[Armelius]

[audtatious]

I agree with you simply becasue the President of the US (POTUS) is the CEO of USA, Inc. What happens on his watch is his alone to bear.

Then in your case I would accept you throwing Bush under the bus for what happened up until Jan 20th. Obama is responsible for anything since that time frame including the bad economy we have right this minute

[Jacko3]

Perhaps, what happens form 6 months after they take office, is their own headache. But what happens before then, can be attributed to the previous President

[HashiriyaS14]

Neither Obama nor Bush created this mess. Bad decisions in private enterprise and human nature in general created it and anyone who says otherwise is pushing some agenda or other.

That said, evaluating the bailout(s) when the funds are either just barely distributed (TARP) or not yet distributed at all (spending bill) is asinine.

It will take 6 months to a year to see any impact, and that impact will likely just be a smaller net contraction than we would have seen otherwise, not a return to net expansion.

Markets rarely (i.e. never) feel the need to adhere to any one ideology. They don't care who says what, and thus ideological purity in either direction will seldom yield the best result. You can hate Obama's strategy here all you want, and voice it all you want, but to somehow imply that ANY impact would have been felt so soon after action is preposterous and everyone here knows it (unless they have ZERO familiarity with macroeconomics, in which case I would ask what business they have making a post on the topic).

This thread is childish at best and intentionally inflammatory at worst.

[audtatious]

This thread is childish at best and intentionally inflammatory at worst.

It's better than having nothing to discuss at all. I would LOVE to post something positive but can't seem to find anything.

[HashiriyaS14]

It's better than having nothing to discuss at all. I would LOVE to post something positive but can't seem to find anything.

You don't have to be positive per se, no one's saying that you have to like the guy or his policies.

But you and I both know that economic stimulus action doesn't take effect that quickly. I'm not going to edit the thread or anything, it's fine, but I guess I just think you're a bright guy and if you're going to find a criticism, you can probably do a much better job than that

[audtatious]

Passin the time my friend, passin the time

I don't hate Obama. I just don't like his stances and I sure don't like the spend spend spend philosophy that is further being pressed today via him and Congress. I didn't like it when the non-fiscally conservative Republicans were doing it and I don't like it with the super-non-fiscally Democrats doing it.

I actually went to CNN to try and find a positive item to post in the forums but found absolutely nothing on the front page that was positive. They didn't even report that the Dow was having a positive day.

[Jacko3]

Passin the time my friend, passin the time

I don't hate Obama. I just don't like his stances and I sure don't like the spend spend spend philosophy that is further being pressed today via him and Congress. I didn't like it when the non-fiscally conservative Republicans were doing it and I don't like it with the super-non-fiscally Democrats doing it.

I actually went to CNN to try and find a positive item to post in the forums but found absolutely nothing on the front page that was positive. They didn't even report that the Dow was having a positive day.

I think the idea of positive information depends largely on one's perspective and the context in which the story is presented. I personally would find news on Citigroup bankruptcy, a positive development, to the extent that this nation can stop bleeding precious cash into an organization that appears to be flailing and failing. What do you think?

Would you consider the news in the following link productive?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm