This was the bill that HAD to be passed with urgency...

[themadscientist]

You base that upon what? That sounds rather post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Any gains could just as easily be attributed to clever market activity adjusting to the new realities.

[GrilledCheese33]

I think it is your news sources that are faulty.

Mine are right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...=1&hp

The failure that you Limbaugh and a few others were wishing for just ain't gonna happen.

We finally got a real president in the whitehouse with a very capable cabinet and advisors.

May I correct you on that last statement? We have a goon president with hardly any experience who has no idea what hes doing. All he knows how to do is read a teleprompter and sign his name. Capable cabinet members my a$$. They can't even pay their own taxes for gods sake! Telcoman, its people and politicians like you who are so outrageously blind and left winged, that are running our beloved country into the f-n ground. Its sad.

[audtatious]

You base that upon what? That sounds rather post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Any gains could just as easily be attributed to clever market activity adjusting to the new realities.

Of course it could have. Just stirring the pot

[themadscientist]

[audtatious]

Need a cast iron spoon

[smockers83]

Sometimes I want a cast iron skillet to smack some people with over the head.

[smockers83]

Depending on the specific government programs in question, one might argue that the government programs employ people too (keeping them afloat might save jobs?). And some programs that rely on the private sector could see a pretty direct trickle down effect. Not saying this is what is or did happen. Just some initial thoughts on this that came up as I read your post...

At what point and to what extent. And potentially, since much of the recession seems to be based on a lack of confidence in the market, wouldn't the prospect of a stimulus help reduce the lack of confidence? That is, as companies on the verge of going under are told they are going to be saved, there would likely be some level of security restored in the job market (perhaps temporarily). Perception has a strong influence on the way people behave. Perhaps the act of coming up with a stimulus package itself helped the economy. And again, this is only speculation on my part as I don't have the time to try and seek out data to make any attempt at any kind of an analysis. My point is that we can't simply look at a single cause/effect relationship and expect that the analysis is complete.

Points taken and I knew someone would bring this up. Some very specific gov programs may be stimulus when the money gets to them. However, it is my belief that a government giving itself more money as "stimulus" is just like the hoopla about big bonuses and high paid executives on Wall St. The government can criticize them but it can dole out billions of it's own money to it's own people at will in the name of stimulus to save a few jobs here and there? C'mon.

Yes perception and confidence in the future is a major determinant in the market. When analyzing the European economies after World War II, this is what we see in the differences between those that prospered after the war and those that did not. However, none of those came in the form of stimulus. Those outlooks were perceived mainly on a country's policies towards business, such as taxes and ability to trade.

[themadscientist]

Confidence? I buy it by the ounce.



Gold's shooting up as well. My gold bar has already increased in value over $70 an ounce in the two weeks it has been on its way to my mailbox.

http://www.kitco.com/market/

Every market move I predicted over a year ago is coming to fruition. It's not a question of if but rather when the currency will crash. Better cover thy a** with real assets because Barry and the gang don't care about you and Bernie's money won't be worth the paper it's printed on very soon.

[audtatious]

Dude, shouldn't you be buying lead?

and brass casings?

[themadscientist]

Still have a s*** load. I just need MREs and a deck of cards now.

[intermilanrox]

The stimulus bill is working. If it wasn't we would be in a world wide depression.

What? Are you serious? World Wide Depression? May I ask, what sort of hardcore drugs are you doing, because you are obviously on something.

I think it is your news sources that are faulty.

Mine are right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...=1&hp

The failure that you Limbaugh and a few others were wishing for just ain't gonna happen.

We finally got a real president in the whitehouse with a very capable cabinet and advisors.

Once again you just spew cr@p all over the place. Did you really just try to say that someone's news source was faulty and then use the NYT as an example of an accurate news source? I'm baffeled, I never knew a bunch of idiots at the NYT was an accurate source of info. That must mean my HS newpaper must be of the some accuracy.

Who is this real president you speak of? The president I know of, is an un-experienced actor who is quite well at reading teleprompter and spewinf lies nonstop but frankly thats were his talents end. This capable cabinet you speak of, is also MIA. Last I checked they can't even pay their own taxes. If Obama picked such a GREAT Capable cabinet, then why did like 3 of the people he asked have to decline due to other "issues".

Bascially, Get your head outta Obama's @$$ and stop taking everything you read in the NYT or w.e Chris Mathews tells you for the truth, and Grow the 'F' up!!!

/ End Rant

[themadscientist]

[AZhitman]

Going back to my original point though, do you have any idea what kind of shape the economy would be in without the stimulus? I sure don't. And I doubt you do either.

But the Administration is TELLING people:

1) Jobs are being created (they're not).2) Jobs are being saved (impossible to say this, not quantifiable).3) The stimulus is working (impossible to attribute to the stimulus).

My issue is with the administration convincing people that a miracle has been performed in a cheap quest for votes from the uninformed. That's all.

Neither the stimulus, CFC, or healthcare reform needed to be addressed hastily. They were. They are, in large part, failures. Fact.

Nothing good comes from a rush job.

[C-Kwik]

Neither the stimulus, CFC, or healthcare reform needed to be addressed hastily. They were. They are, in large part, failures. Fact.

With regards to the stimulus, how can you claim them fact when you admit there is no quantifiable way to measure their level of success (or failure)? Which is pretty much what I was getting at since my first post in this thread. Did it need to be enacted quickly? Maybe, maybe not. Its not like we have a control group to compare it to. You can not like the decision, but calling it a failure at this point is just as bad as calling it a success...

Points taken and I knew someone would bring this up. Some very specific gov programs may be stimulus when the money gets to them. However, it is my belief that a government giving itself more money as "stimulus" is just like the hoopla about big bonuses and high paid executives on Wall St. The government can criticize them but it can dole out billions of it's own money to it's own people at will in the name of stimulus to save a few jobs here and there? C'mon.

Hard to say without looking at, in detail, where all the money went and why. But do consider that the government is one of the biggest employers in the country.

As for controlling executive wages, its only applied to companies that received aid intended to save the company...not sure why there would be any complaint about that...

Yes perception and confidence in the future is a major determinant in the market. When analyzing the European economies after World War II, this is what we see in the differences between those that prospered after the war and those that did not. However, none of those came in the form of stimulus. Those outlooks were perceived mainly on a country's policies towards business, such as taxes and ability to trade.

I've heard arguments for stimulus types of recovery and free trade types of recovery. Both make sense to me (admittedly, I don't have enough knowledge to truly gauge the best course). But I don't think there is only one possible path to recovery.

Any recovery we have had is directly attributed to the first stimulus

[AZhitman]

calling it a failure at this point is just as bad as calling it a success...

That's all I needed to see.

My point is, why do we keep getting told it's been a success? Why were we told it HAS to be done NOW?

You said, "Speculatively though, failure to act quickly could become more detrimental. "

That sounds like you're not 50/50. If you're leaning towards supporting quick enactment, we need to know why.

"Speculating" with my tax dollars is getting me irritated with this administration.

[smockers83]

Hard to say without looking at, in detail, where all the money went and why. But do consider that the government is one of the biggest employers in the country.

I know where it went. It went into sticky notes to map out each department's processes on a wall.

As for controlling executive wages, its only applied to companies that received aid intended to save the company...not sure why there would be any complaint about that...

Yes, but much of that money was rammed down their throats against their will. Granted, the big institutions that didn't need it have already paid it back. The government meddling in how much people get paid is communistic. Saving the company and how much the executives get paid is up to the board and stockholders (it should also be noted that the government did buy stock in Citi, but as for other banks, I don't think they did).

I've heard arguments for stimulus types of recovery and free trade types of recovery. Both make sense to me (admittedly, I don't have enough knowledge to truly gauge the best course). But I don't think there is only one possible path to recovery.

The best course to recovery wasn't my point necessarily, just pointing out the fact in how much government policies drive economic growth. The point was that many European countries saw different things in terms of capital (people moving from farming to industrial jobs, technological advancements) but some saw better years than others, all directly related to government policies towards business. The British had all the military technology to put into public use and many people moving into manufacturing, but didn't necessarily come out the strongest in growth just because of those factors. If the right policy is in place that is advantageous to business and growth, the economy will grow. But if you dampen it in any way with any type of policy, you won't get the potential growth possible.

[C-Kwik]

That's all I needed to see.

My point is, why do we keep getting told it's been a success? Why were we told it HAS to be done NOW?

You said, "Speculatively though, failure to act quickly could become more detrimental. "

That sounds like you're not 50/50. If you're leaning towards supporting quick enactment, we need to know why.

"Speculating" with my tax dollars is getting me irritated with this administration.

My speculation is just that. MY speculation. I don't claim to know why the administration did what they did. But in evaluating any topic, I try to take a step back and try to think of possible reasons for actions. I was hoping my speculative examples would help you to try to do that rather than summararily reaching hard conclusions. I mean, why bother asking for answers if you don't want to hear them?

I don't support the stimulus, nor do I see it as hugely negative. I'm fairly agnostic about it at this point as I can see both sides of the arguments pretty evenly. Its just not a simple enough issue for me to decipher. People more economically knowledgable than I likely have much more solid opinions along with reasoning behind it (on both sides of the debate). I'd love to see some good discussion on the topic, but discussions don't happen when people close their minds to it...

I know where it went.

Oh? Please share.

Yes, but much of that money was rammed down their throats against their will. Granted, the big institutions that didn't need it have already paid it back. The government meddling in how much people get paid is communistic. Saving the company and how much the executives get paid is up to the board and stockholders (it should also be noted that the government did buy stock in Citi, but as for other banks, I don't think they did).

Again, please share (I've been pretty swamped this semester so I haven't been able to keep track of a lot of important news so I'm being earnest in requesting sources). I'd generally agree that the government shouldn't dictate executive salaries, but if they were given money to save their butts, then I expect that the "investor" has some say it what happens. Last thing I want to hear about is my tax dollars that went to saving some company being spent on some executive's salary. I'd rather see it go to the workers in the company. $10 million a year would pay for a lot of employees.

The best course to recovery wasn't my point necessarily, just pointing out the fact in how much government policies drive economic growth. The point was that many European countries saw different things in terms of capital (people moving from farming to industrial jobs, technological advancements) but some saw better years than others, all directly related to government policies towards business. The British had all the military technology to put into public use and many people moving into manufacturing, but didn't necessarily come out the strongest in growth just because of those factors. If the right policy is in place that is advantageous to business and growth, the economy will grow. But if you dampen it in any way with any type of policy, you won't get the potential growth possible.

No disagreements here. The question of course, is what is the right policy?

[ILOVESILVIA(S13)]

You're an idiot if you think the stimulus bill is working.

[szh]

You're an idiot if you think the stimulus bill is working.

I disagree with Telco about that too, but ... let's not have personal attacks please.

Z

[srellim234]

You have to admit, the stimulus bill is working. It's working for CEOs, boards of directors, upper level managers, and those who still have jobs and money to start getting back into investing in real estate and the stock market.

It is not working for those who need it most, the millions of people who have seen their jobs disappear from the economy and their retirement investments go up in flames.

It has relegated those people to second class citizens who along with their children will never be able to dig out from under the mountain of debt the government has piled on them.

[JustinStrife]

If you worked for the Government, or a Union, the stimulus bill worked. If you work in the private sector, you just saw more of your tax money being thrown away to special interests.

The real irony of all of this? The people who helped instigate the mess we're in now, are the same people who are in charge. Scary stuff man...

[ishkabibble]

The real irony of all of this? The people who helped instigate the mess we're in now, are the same people who are in charge.

How did they help instigate it? Are you talking about the Community Reinvestment Act?

[themadscientist]

That is likely what her is referring to and I agree. Wall Street was guilty as hell, but so were the forces behind that legislation.

[AZhitman]

I was hoping my speculative examples would help you to try to do that rather than summararily reaching hard conclusions. I mean, why bother asking for answers if you don't want to hear them?

I'd love to see some good discussion on the topic, but discussions don't happen when people close their minds to it...

I'm far from closed-minded about it.

I DO stand firm on the following: That there are very few problems that can be solved by throwing money at them, government is the LAST entity that should be responsible for "fixing" things, and that when things are RUSHED, they're either poorly-executed or trying to avoid close scrutiny.

If that makes me closed-minded regarding this topic, so be it.

The facts are, CFC didn't accomplish its goals. The stimulus didn't come close to its promised effects, and the health care package STILL generates more questions than answers (exhibit A: Pelosi's big rush).

So, given those three examples, and no real evidence to the contrary, you'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit mistrustful and critical.

[szh]

The real irony of all of this? The people who helped instigate the mess we're in now, are the same people who are in charge. Scary stuff man...

If that also refers to people like Barney Frank, then I also agree.

This guy was among the folks who created the situation for mortgage meltdown back in Clinton's era with the "housing for all" liberal posturing, and is a member of the committee charged with overseeing the economic recovery.

Very scary indeed!

Z

[smockers83]

Oh? Please share.

That was a joke. Plus I told you, it went into the hugely inefficient process of process mapping. We won't really know until 2-3 years later when the audit is done. Remember how long it took to figure out the Katrina financial mess?

Again, please share (I've been pretty swamped this semester so I haven't been able to keep track of a lot of important news so I'm being earnest in requesting sources). I'd generally agree that the government shouldn't dictate executive salaries, but if they were given money to save their butts, then I expect that the "investor" has some say it what happens. Last thing I want to hear about is my tax dollars that went to saving some company being spent on some executive's salary. I'd rather see it go to the workers in the company. $10 million a year would pay for a lot of employees.

Share what exactly? Yes, but when the government starts dictating salaries, you have executives that flee the company looking for another executive job at another company that isn't bound by government rules on pay, or what's called a brain drain. AIG's new CEO is frustrated by the restrictions the government has put on it, now along with this salary restriction, he's considering leaving the company. He's a smart guy, was CEO of MetLife, one of the more successful insurance and annuities firms. Not many executives are paid $10 million/year cash. The highest paid CEO in 2005 had a salary of $600,000 (Yahoo's CEO). The workers of a company? Isn't the CEO a worker of the company, too? He/she is the one who directs and leads a multi-billion dollar firm. They should get fair compensation for what they do, no? A firm's biggest expense is it's employees and if employees don't get paid, what's the incentive to work?

It's easy to target executives because a minute minority have been in those positions and can understand the position, whereas us as ordinary citizens may never know what it's like. I've seen these guys at work, and holy s***

No disagreements here. The question of course, is what is the right policy?

The vague answer is one that doesn't restrict foreign trade and has positive outlook for the future in all business aspects.

You have to admit, the stimulus bill is working. It's working for CEOs, boards of directors, upper level managers, and those who still have jobs and money to start getting back into investing in real estate and the stock market.

It is not working for those who need it most, the millions of people who have seen their jobs disappear from the economy and their retirement investments go up in flames.

It has relegated those people to second class citizens who along with their children will never be able to dig out from under the mountain of debt the government has piled on them.

The biggest problem with the first two paragraphs is that this should have been written 9-12 months ago. All of those people who are "starting" to get back into the market should not be starting, they should already have gotten back into it a long time ago. And those who saw their retirement savings in stocks go up in flames have earned 50% of it back in just under a year. That's a huge gain. They did see their retirement go up in flames if they pulled out of the market when it went down, which was the biggest mistake they may ever make.

To play devil's advocate, we as a country ourselves put this pile of debt on us by the citizens not saving and buying everything on credit. Household spending kept going up while real wages remained flat for nearly a decade. This is why we hear people bought outside of their means. Real spending should have never gone up, but it did nearly every year.

If you worked for the Government, or a Union, the stimulus bill worked. If you work in the private sector, you just saw more of your tax money being thrown away to special interests.

The real irony of all of this? The people who helped instigate the mess we're in now, are the same people who are in charge. Scary stuff man...

Not exactly and I beg to differ. If you work for a Union, your job is more at stake than any other job out there. Unions impose higher labor costs on firms that aren't easily changed. A non-unionized firm can easily change it's cost structure to weather through a downturn. A unionized firm does not have that luxury. Many unionized firms have gone bankrupt or are teetering on the verge of going bankrupt while their competitors who are non-union are doing relatively quite well.

As for the irony, the people who instigated some of this, especially the ones who did it the most, are indeed not in charge anywhere. They're probably dealing with court battles. The real irony is that many millions of Americans, ordinary citizens, instigated this crisis as well because they became irresponsible financially. In terms of housing, the bank took unnecessary and high risks while at the same time those who went to those banks took unnecessary financial risks as well. It really goes both ways.

[smockers83]

To illustrate my point about union vs. non-union, let's look at who has gone or is on the edge of going bankrupt.

We had nearly a whole industry that is unionized go bankrupt, the auto sector. Two thirds of the companies filed for bankruptcy, those being GM and Chrysler.

The largest trucking company in the nation is teetering on the verge of going bankrupt because it cannot lower it's cost structure in relation to it's workforce fast enough because it has one of the most violent and notorious unions, Teamsters. The company has essentially gone into bankruptcy without going into bankruptcy by restructuring some of it's debt structure to access cash, which it will burn through with the union.

[AZhitman]

^ Good.

Maybe they'll figure out that the shareholders are the only legitimate authorities in business and go the way of other ideas whose time has come and gone.

[ishkabibble]

That is likely what her is referring to and I agree. Wall Street was guilty as hell, but so were the forces behind that legislation.

I don't agree; there is little factual evidence to support that position. Most of the bad loans out there had nothing to do with the CRA.

[AZhitman]

I don't agree; there is little factual evidence to support that position. Most of the bad loans out there had nothing to do with the CRA.

Hmmm.

I'd have to see some hard stats, and I don't think there are any.

But it stands to reason the CRA was a huge contributor.

One side of the story:http://www.lewrockwell.com/dil....html

And an opposing view:http://www.businessweek.com/in....html

I think the TRUE answer lies somewhere in between.

Of COURSE most lenders aren't going to point to CRA as the cause. Hell, it was enacted before 75% of them were born.

Regardless of all this, as a fiscal conservative, I blame the real offenders: Those who chose to live beyond their means.

Can't blame banks for wanting to turn a profit - Their shareholders demand it.