Holy Cow, Obama advisors say prepare for another stimulus!!!!

[cutthemdown]

http://www.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUSN0733371020090707

* U.S. should plan for more fiscal stimulus -Obama adviser

* Oil futures settle down 1.8 pct, denting energy shares

* Indexes down: Dow 1.9 pct; S&P 1.9 pct; Nasdaq 2.3 pct

* For up-to-the-minute market news click [STXNEWS/US] (Updates to close)

By Edward Krudy

NEW YORK, July 7 (Reuters) - U.S. stocks fell to their lowest level in 10 weeks on Tuesday as talk of a second government stimulus plan heightened fears that the economy is not yet on the path to recovery and that the corporate earnings season starting this week will be weak.

A member of the Obama administration's economic advisory panel said the United States should plan to possibly provide a second round of stimulus funds to prop up the economy. The comments come as investors question earlier optimism for a quick recovery, which had driven stocks as much as 40 percent higher since early March. For details, see [ID:nSP379268]

"It's clear that over the last three plus weeks that investors are becoming concerned that the recovery in the economy will not come as soon as expected and will not be as strong as expected," said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer of Johnson Illington Advisors in Albany, New York.



Holy cow Obama!!!! You can't just keep spending and expect things to get better. The first stimulus not even spent yet, only half a yr into admin, and already talking another one!!!!

This really is getting out of hand. We just have to ride it out and let the market work itself out. More spending just won't fix it. I do agree with govt slowly spending or enticing investment into what Obama feels are future type industries. But these mass spending bills just don't help the avg American. If anything it may help union people, bank big wigs, but not us.

Keep the banks from failing, protect insured investments, but just say no to another huge stimulus pork filled boondoggle.

[Hotrod]

Barry is the ****ing Devil

Our kids have the right to ****ing kick each and everyone of us square in the balls.

[watermock]

Jesus, they can't spend fast enough as it is?

Now we hae 68k in afghan, the fed has given 13 trillion to the banks...that doesn't even count on the books, it's money supply.

They're giving banks .75% money!

Hyperinflation here we come.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Old news...that was talked about 6 months ago.

[Seamus]

When first you don't succeed try try again to spend us into oblivion. Think we will have the same "transparency" on the next stimulus crap to come out of this government trying to spend us into prosperity?

The last one had great intentions, despite being written by Pelosi before understanding the levity of the problem, and passed with lightning speed in all the wrong areas (obviously since it didn't help). Why should trust them to get it right the next time? Our currency is already a joke around the world, Russia, China, Europe, and heck even India wants to dump it for something else.

Then these pointy heads have been debating for months, is another one needed, do we need to accelerate the spending on the first one? Well they should scrap the first one and recall all the future spending that hasn't taken place yet, then reorganize themselves with actual stimulus spending instead of repaying their special interest groups.

[Bob]

Old news...that was talked about 6 months ago.

Its all Bush's fault?

Morons, think they can spend away a problem of over-spending, by spending more --

Truth is they want hyper-inflation to make dependants of us all -- and I think that most R's and D's love that notion -- a nation of serfs.

[footstepsfrom#27]

When first you don't succeed try try again to spend us into oblivion. Think we will have the same "transparency" on the next stimulus crap to come out of this government trying to spend us into prosperity?

The last one had great intentions, despite being written by Pelosi before understanding the levity of the problem, and passed with lightning speed in all the wrong areas (obviously since it didn't help).
I'm interested in this last comment. Can you explain; 1) which targeted areas are "wrong areas", and 2) why you think so? More importantly, WHEN exactly do you think this is supposed to "help"?

That's 3 things I'm asking you.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Its all Bush's fault?

Morons, think they can spend away a problem of over-spending, by spending more --

Truth is they want hyper-inflation to make dependants of us all -- and I think that most R's and D's love that notion -- a nation of serfs.
I asked a question on the Palin thread...still waiting for your answer.

[Seamus]

Footsteps, I love the challenge, lets start off with the wide right winger Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html

Please take a look through the bill and let us know if you find anything noteworthy or surprising. Specifically, search for anything a little out of the ordinary, such as the section on page 14 that makes sure no money goes directly to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. That provision was introduced earlier as an amendment and it has made it into the final bill.

Or read through the oversight sections and the authority (and money) given to Government Accountability Office. Is it real oversight or are there wide loopholes?

John Maynard Keynes famously said that burying bottles of cash under ground would be a suitable -- if not ideal -- way of reducing unemployment. One person's bottle-burying earmark is another's job-creation project.

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez faire to dig the notes up again . . . there need be no more unemployment," Keynes wrote in his work The General Theory. "It would indeed be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

Is this stimulus burying bottles of cash? Or building houses and the like?

[Seamus]

I liked this article on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/17/cafferty.stimulus/index.html

[Seamus]

Laura Tyson bid for the second stimulus bill:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=ajQbZ.WrAVwQ

The stimulus bill tries to control our health care and doctors: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

From the right wing, got to have balance here:http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020309b.cfm
The Congressional Budget Office studied the "stimulus" package, and found only about half the money lawmakers want to spend will be used this year or next. In other words, it's not a jolt to the economy, it's pointless as stimulus, and the lawmakers who voted for it must know that.

Their real goal seems to be to expand the government. This bill includes some $140 billion for education -- almost twice what the Education Department spent all of last year. It also aims to pump $35 billion extra into the Department of Energy, a stunning sum since DOE's current annual budget is $23.8 billion.

100 Questionable Stimulus Projects, Even Vice President Joe Biden, who was charged with heading up the stimulus implementation, said on
June 2, “Some people are being scammed already.”: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f

[Seamus]

I believe that the bill has too many loop holes and problems with corruption, I love this quote:

Supporters of the stimulus said that the key to preventing the misuse of federal money was a strong dose of transparency. If the details of every project were posted online, they said, including where the money is spent and for what, a natural system of accountability would develop. Unfortunately, this has not happened. It is nearly impossible right now for the average taxpayer to find out where his money is going. It was recently revealed that Recovery.gov, a new website being developed to bring “unprecedented transparency” by tracking the money “down to the penny,” may not even be ready until spring 2010 – a full year after the stimulus was passed. Taxpayers who will be left paying for every wasteful stimulus project deserve a full accounting of where their money is going.

[Seamus]

I guess I am still hammering why I don't think it will work:

The most recent Nobel Prize awarded for work specifically in macroeconomics--the branch of economics that studies aggregate economic phenomena, the causes of recessions, and the effectiveness of government attempts to stimulate economic performance--went to Columbia University's Edmund Phelps in 2006. When I spoke to Phelps on Tuesday, he was rather less emphatically decisive than was Prescott about the dire prospects of the stimulus. But neither was he optimistic. "We're completely flying blind," Phelps said, suggesting that even the best of the best in macroeconomics don't know enough to predict with confidence how the stimulus will pan out. "There's a chance that some of the infrastructure spending will do the job of creating more work for earth-moving equipment and construction workers, Phelps noted. "I said, 'a chance'," he continued. "Now, there's also a chance that the perceived increase in the role of government of this sort will have some unanticipated effects on the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. These projects may stand as a sort of symbol of the weakening of the private sector."

The incentives of entrepreneurs is central to Phelps' thought. Phelps says he "just doesn't understand" the argument that government can spur innovation through top-down subsidies for selected new technologies. Citing his Columbia colleague Amar Bhide, Phelps suspects that "a lot of money will be made by being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. Especially knowing the right people." Phelps is disturbed by the thought that we may be shifting from an entrepreneurial economy toward a lobbying economy. "A lot of potential entrepreneurs, who were contemplating making an innovation and launching it in the marketplace, will now think, 'Well maybe the safer thing to do is to try to get that government contract.' ... And nobody does the innovation. They're all too busy trying to get the government contract."

[footstepsfrom#27]

Footsteps, I love the challenge, lets start off with the wide right winger Huffington Post...Please take a look through the bill and let us know if you find anything noteworthy or surprising.
It's 647 pages according to the link you provided...oddly only 407 pages via the pdf I located...for the time being though I think I'll pass, but you're actually making my point beautifully. I responded to a post that postulated both innapropriate emphasis as well as the bizarre notion that 4 1/2 months after the bill was signed...one designed to generate both spending and tax cuts over 10 years..."it's not working". Do you think the poster has read the bill? Much less know whether anything is out of wack?

See the problem?

You mentioned several things in the bill, so does this mean you're actually reading it? If so...I commend you. It's on my agenda to read through parts of it for business purposes, but I'll do that over several weeks...but let's be truthful. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 people will read this thing, and 99.999% of those who'll discuss it won't have. Maybe 1% will actually read part of it.

Do you disagree?

[Seamus]

Where the spending went wrong, and why the bill didn't do the job it was suppose to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mr-president-show-me-the-money

At the end the author gives his recommendation. I don't agree with this, however a hidden common theme between this and the other articles listed above state that government isn't the best at choosing where and how much to spend. This should have been left up to the tax payers in this country where more relevant and quicker relief would have been noticed. Economics is complicated and a single paragraph isn't going to convey how building government infrastructure or a couple so called "green jobs" isn't going to make lasting jobs right away.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I guess I am still hammering why I don't think it will work:

The most recent Nobel Prize awarded for work specifically in macroeconomics--the branch of economics that studies aggregate economic phenomena, the causes of recessions, and the effectiveness of government attempts to stimulate economic performance--went to Columbia University's Edmund Phelps in 2006. When I spoke to Phelps on Tuesday, he was rather less emphatically decisive than was Prescott about the dire prospects of the stimulus. But neither was he optimistic. "We're completely flying blind," Phelps said, suggesting that even the best of the best in macroeconomics don't know enough to predict with confidence how the stimulus will pan out. "There's a chance that some of the infrastructure spending will do the job of creating more work for earth-moving equipment and construction workers, Phelps noted. "I said, 'a chance'," he continued. "Now, there's also a chance that the perceived increase in the role of government of this sort will have some unanticipated effects on the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. These projects may stand as a sort of symbol of the weakening of the private sector."

The incentives of entrepreneurs is central to Phelps' thought. Phelps says he "just doesn't understand" the argument that government can spur innovation through top-down subsidies for selected new technologies. Citing his Columbia colleague Amar Bhide, Phelps suspects that "a lot of money will be made by being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. Especially knowing the right people." Phelps is disturbed by the thought that we may be shifting from an entrepreneurial economy toward a lobbying economy. "A lot of potential entrepreneurs, who were contemplating making an innovation and launching it in the marketplace, will now think, 'Well maybe the safer thing to do is to try to get that government contract.' ... And nobody does the innovation. They're all too busy trying to get the government contract."
You forgot the link: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/93473/The_selfdefeating_stimulus

Quoting economists...even Nobel Prize winners is great, but the truth is economists are largely split on this issue much like they are on many other things. For those of us who are not economists...it boils down to who you choose to listen to. Personally I favor the bottom up thinking of Muhammad Yunus.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Where the spending went wrong, and why the bill didn't do the job it was suppose to: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mr-president-show-me-the-money
This review was written on May 26th...3 months into a 10 year projected outlay of both spending and tax benefits. Do you see a small problem with stating, "this didn't work" 2.5% of the way in? That's like calling the football game 1:30 into the 1st quarter and deciding the strategy has failed.
At the end the author gives his recommendation. I don't agree with this, however a hidden common theme between this and the other articles listed above state that government isn't the best at choosing where and how much to spend. This should have been left up to the tax payers in this country where more relevant and quicker relief would have been noticed. Economics is complicated and a single paragraph isn't going to convey how building government infrastructure or a couple so called "green jobs" isn't going to make lasting jobs right away.
Irwin Kellner who wrote the piece you're looking at, was also a victim of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. Is that relevant? I'm not sure...but it's interesting isn't it?

[Seamus]

It's 647 pages according to the link you provided...oddly only 407 pages via the pdf I located...for the time being though I think I'll pass, but you're actually making my point beautifully. I responded to a post that postulated both innapropriate emphasis as well as the bizarre notion that 4 1/2 months after the bill was signed...one designed to generate both spending and tax cuts over 10 years..."it's not working". Do you think the poster has read the bill? Much less know whether anything is out of wack?

See the problem?

You mentioned several things in the bill, so does this mean you're actually reading it? If so...I commend you. It's on my agenda to read through parts of it for business purposes, but I'll do that over several weeks...but let's be truthful. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 people will read this thing, and 99.999% of those who'll discuss it won't have. Maybe 1% will actually read part of it.

Do you disagree?


I try to summarize this in another post, the problem with government like you state, the laws passed have so much junk. This Government's hubris attempt to stimulate through regulation with no concept of how their selection to spend in one area, and shun in another is starting to show. This piece of legislation will hamstring business as they try to cope with this behemoth. How can this help stimulate business and increase employment? It needed to be simple.

Unfortunately you are incorrect in the assumption that the stimulus needs to further develop before economic improvement. A backfire of this policy has already started! Look at the bond holders of American debt (China and Japan) and business who look ahead. If they knew there was a promise of a economic recovery, future investment pay off, and overall prosperity, we would have seen positive numbers in anything right now.

As listed above, I take the VP's own assessment, if it is going to work and improvement should be evident in a short period of time (6 months).

Investing in individual companies gives you a perspective of how government fouls things up, try telling me which company you think will recover the fastest and why as we go forward. You will learn quite a bit.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I try to summarize this in another post, the problem with government like you state, the laws passed have so much junk. This Government's hubris attempt to stimulate through regulation with no concept of how their selection to spend in one area, and shun in another is starting to show. This piece of legislation will hamstring business as they try to cope with this behemoth. How can this help stimulate business and increase employment? It needed to be simple.
Question: How exactly do you know they have "no concept" in determining where to appropriate funds? I need a definitive answer to this question, because it's been raised several times in here as some kind of new codified axiom of economics, so it deserves to be specified how this information has been obtained.
Unfortunately you are incorrect in the assumption that the stimulus needs to further develop before economic improvement. A backfire of this policy has already started! Look at the bond holders of American debt (China and Japan) and business who look ahead. If they knew there was a promise of a economic recovery, future investment pay off, and overall prosperity, we would have seen positive numbers in anything right now.
I've read about a dozen or so analysis on this bill so far. Every one has made the point that the first several years...YEARS not months...will mark the expected benefit to the economy. Second...those benefits with longer lasting impact, investments in infrastructure for example...rely on business cycles that won't even begin to hit for at least 5 years. That's the time it takes for research to turn around into actual development. So no...I'm not wrong. Second...you cited the possibility of "positive numbers" resulting from businesses that "look ahead". Earlier I posted a reference to exactly that...a portion of which I quote below...AEM represents 800 global equipment manufacturers...note the emphasis on how this chronology plays out over time:

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/562480

AEM urges swift action on infrastructure legislation.

Release date: June 18, 2009

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) joins a coalition of organizations today to urge Congress to move ahead quickly on desperately needed reauthorization of surface transportation legislation.

America's infrastructure is crumbling and proper investment can help improve American quality of life, boost U.S. competitiveness and reduce our nation's high unemployment rate, AEM said today in Washington, DC.

"AEM applauds the introduction of this framework to move forward on reauthorizing the federal surface transportation programs. If Congress can make a long term commitment to investing in infrastructure, contractors will be able to make needed investment in capital equipment that will meet the short term need to put people back to work and meet the long term need to repair and update US infrastructure," noted AEM President Dennis Slater.

[watermock]

The Governmnt, run by the fed, id picking the winners and losers for their own benefit, as well as their own political ambitions.

Never ever, have we seen such rampant spending, even during ww2.

[watermock]

"AEM applauds the introduction of this framework to move forward on reauthorizing the federal surface transportation programs. If Congress can make a long term commitment to investing in infrastructure, contractors will be able to make needed investment in capital equipment that will meet the short term need to put people back to work and meet the long term need to repair and update US infrastructure," noted AEM President Dennis Slater.

Is that why Cat had to pay a premium to get financing?

[Seamus]

Irwin Kellner who wrote the piece you're looking at, was also a victim of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. Is that relevant? I'm not sure...but it's interesting isn't it?[/QUOTE]

My point from Irwin Kellner was to get an article from a financial group discussing how business relates to the stimulus bill. It went a little further into the trickle down stuff of how a economy like ours based mostly on the service industry isn't going to get help from building a road. I like Market Watch, will try to get something along the same lines:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles//6/22/2009/index/a/23205

http://www.minyanville.com/articles//6/2/2009/index/a/22891

[Seamus]

Question: How exactly do you know they have "no concept" in determining where to appropriate funds? I need a definitive answer to this question, because it's been raised several times in here as some kind of new codified axiom of economics, so it deserves to be specified how this information has been obtained.


Easy one first, government shouldn't be in the business of regulating success. When they meddle in things that are not benefiting the constituency as a whole, they tend to bend to special interest regulating our freedom as they see fit. This allows for corruption and damaging results to otherwise legal businesses.

Past examples of unintended circumstances was the government's plan to push ethanol, farmers would rather grow the crappy corn for fuel then food forcing the price of food high hurting poor family and countries the most.

The Community Reinvestment Act with good intentions got hijacked leading to the sub prime mess.

Recent legislation over the credit card legislation there are two sides to this story, and in the end, the unintended circumstances will hit hard.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Irwin Kellner who wrote the piece you're looking at, was also a victim of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. Is that relevant? I'm not sure...but it's interesting isn't it?

My point from Irwin Kellner was to get an article from a financial group discussing how business relates to the stimulus bill. It went a little further into the trickle down stuff of how a economy like ours based mostly on the service industry isn't going to get help from building a road. I like Market Watch, will try to get something along the same lines:

http://www.minyanville.com/articles//6/22/2009/index/a/23205

http://www.minyanville.com/articles//6/2/2009/index/a/22891
Calling this a "service economy" is a bit like saying China makes fireworks. A lot of economists theorize that the service sector is the expected destination of rank and file labor that's unable to keep up with technology. But despite the loss of manufacturing jobs, we're still strong with research and technology. Infrastructure is hardly limited to road building, and anyone in their right mind who looks out the window traveling through any large city in America knows we have enormous challenges and a huge job ahead if we're going to do anything more with the millions of people trapped in urban blight behond simply relegate them to the scrap heap...and forfeit the economic benefits our own human resources are capable of producing in the process.

To solve the trade imbalance, we have to compete. To compete we have modernize this entire nation's economic infrastructure...not just roads, but transportation, communications, education, health care, etc...this is not a simple matter of giving people extra money in their tax rebate and sitting back to watch while the stock market rebounds in 3 months. That's insanely simplistic, utterly without any basis in how this is actually intended to work, and frankly...we both know this is a straw man.

The real point...is not whether it's going to work or not...nobody knows yet...but whether now that we're heading this direction, can we pull together as a country to get things done? Anybody who thinks there are easy solutions to this is simply deluding themselves. We're going to be in trouble for years...but we've also gone through other periods in US history that took extensive time to come out of, including the '30's era depression.

Frankly I think the real answers are being brewed in places that never make the press...read people like Daniel Pink who suggests innovation and the introduction of creative thinking is the new entrepreneurial energy that will drive an economy based on the right side of the brain instead of what China and India are able to do. The one thing we hold in this country that most don't...we reward risk...even to the point of ignoring failure. That theme went amuk in the Bush era with the crazy notion that greed could be trusted to police itself...but it doesn't change the fact that this is still a country of entrepreneurs and risk takers and always will be. Hence I disagree with the author's point that will change due to this stimulus bill.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Easy one first, government shouldn't be in the business of regulating success. When they meddle in things that are not benefiting the constituency as a whole, they tend to bend to special interest regulating our freedom as they see fit. This allows for corruption and damaging results to otherwise legal businesses.
That's not a real answer. I'm not asking for political theory here. I'm asking how you know SPECIFICALLY related to this current bill, that the areas of emphasis where money has been appropriated are "wrong". That's the general point opponents here are making...not just that government shouldn't be involved, but that the money allocated is going to the wrong places. So what I'm asking is...how do you know this? Specific examples...not some kind of broad brush portrayal based on ideology, but actual specifics on why X department or agency or area of focus shoud not receive what they did in this bill, then offer some data to back that up.
Past examples of unintended circumstances was the government's plan to push ethanol, farmers would rather grow the crappy corn for fuel then food forcing the price of food high hurting poor family and countries the most.
We're not talking about past examples, especially since this is now a new government...the government in the past also sponsored space research that's proven beneficial so we can point/counterpoint there.

I'm interested in what THIS bill is doing, not what happened before this. I'll start with asking this; you posted a link to the bill...have you read part or all of it?

[Seamus]

I've read about a dozen or so analysis on this bill so far. Every one has made the point that the first several years...YEARS not months...will mark the expected benefit to the economy. Second...those benefits with longer lasting impact, investments in infrastructure for example...rely on business cycles that won't even begin to hit for at least 5 years. That's the time it takes for research to turn around into actual development. So no...I'm not wrong. Second...you cited the possibility of "positive numbers" resulting from businesses that "look ahead". Earlier I posted a reference to exactly that...a portion of which I quote below...AEM represents 800 global equipment manufacturers...note the emphasis on how this chronology plays out over time:

I doubt trying to buy ourselves out of this is going to work, the economics are not there. Realistically how can anyone expect for every dollar spent by the government we will get a dollar of recovery and be able to pay back this along with the interest accruing?
Our economy should recover if it isn't socialized beyond recognition through more damaging legislation and borrowing. As an example of past government intervention we need to look to history and the last great depression. UCLA economist state this type of spending prolonged the depression by 7 years.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

[Seamus]

I'm interested in what THIS bill is doing, not what happened before this. I'll start with asking this; you posted a link to the bill...have you read part or all of it?

As discussed earlier we agree there isn't time to read/understand nor have I read the whole bill. Parts effecting me and my job are foremost worth understanding. I am not a policy maker/official and unfortunately deferred this responsibility to my elected representation. Most damming is they didn't read or understand this, yet it passed anyway.

However in doing their elected job, senator Coburn posted for his constituents his interpretation of the negative. He has the staff to do so, this was posted above:http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=59af3ebd-7bf9-4933-8279-8091b533464f*
*fixed the link

[footstepsfrom#27]

I doubt trying to buy ourselves out of this is going to work, the economics are not there. Realistically how can anyone expect for every dollar spent by the government we will get a dollar of recovery and be able to pay back this along with the interest accruing?
It's easy to use th word "buy" or "spend"...it has more negative connotations than the word "invest"...which denotes perceived return in the future. But you suggest "the economics are not there". What does that MEAN? It sounds like a politically loaded phrase used to generate disbelief in the current initiative, not something factually oriented. Also...the so called "multiplyer effect"...the expected ROI in the secondary economic impact analysis that you phrase as "every dollar spent..."...is dismissed with, "How can anyone expect...?" The fact is...lots of economists DO expect that. The numbers vary along political lines to a great extent, but I will submit the federal CDFI program running inside the US Treasury as an example of how and where we need to be investing. CDFI funds return a 2700% ROI on each public dollar spent through private equity partnership BEFORE the multiplyer effect.

Conservates think the only people who can be trusted with making econmic impact occupy the top runs on the income ladder. I believe much of our problem lies in that philosophy. Invest in the tools necessary to drive both consumer and entrepreneurial energy from the bottom up, and jobs will be created in places we're not even aware of yet. I'm not alone in thinking so.
Our economy should recover if it isn't socialized beyond recognition through more damaging legislation and borrowing.
I'm curious...do you associate giving tax benefits to corporations and massive lax oversight of the finance industry as socialism? It interests me that anytime the federal treasury is expected to put money into areas from the ground up instead of the ceiing down...it becomes "socicalism". Here's another way of asking this question; Do you believe we should be pushing the bottom of our economic pyramid higher by building an economic system that rewards innovation and business enterprise there, or leaving them to rot on the bottom? In other words...who gets to benefit from US taxpayer money rightfully...the top 1% of the income bracket characterized by corporate officers and large shareholders, or people further down the line?

[Seamus]

Calling this a "service economy" is a bit like saying China makes fireworks. A lot of economists theorize that the service sector is the expected destination of rank and file labor that's unable to keep up with technology. But despite the loss of manufacturing jobs, we're still strong with research and technology. Infrastructure is hardly limited to road building, and anyone in their right mind who looks out the window traveling through any large city in America knows we have enormous challenges and a huge job ahead if we're going to do anything more with the millions of people trapped in urban blight behond simply relegate them to the scrap heap...and forfeit the economic benefits our own human resources are capable of producing in the process.

To solve the trade imbalance, we have to compete. To compete we have modernize this entire nation's economic infrastructure...not just roads, but transportation, communications, education, health care, etc...this is not a simple matter of giving people extra money in their tax rebate and sitting back to watch while the stock market rebounds in 3 months. That's insanely simplistic, utterly without any basis in how this is actually intended to work, and frankly...we both know this is a straw man.

The real point...is not whether it's going to work or not...nobody knows yet...but whether now that we're heading this direction, can we pull together as a country to get things done? Anybody who thinks there are easy solutions to this is simply deluding themselves. We're going to be in trouble for years...but we've also gone through other periods in US history that took extensive time to come out of, including the '30's era depression.

Frankly I think the real answers are being brewed in places that never make the press...read people like Daniel Pink who suggests innovation and the introduction of creative thinking is the new entrepreneurial energy that will drive an economy based on the right side of the brain instead of what China and India are able to do. The one thing we hold in this country that most don't...we reward risk...even to the point of ignoring failure. That theme went amuk in the Bush era with the crazy notion that greed could be trusted to police itself...but it doesn't change the fact that this is still a country of entrepreneurs and risk takers and always will be. Hence I disagree with the author's point that will change due to this stimulus bill.

There is no doubt for years the US has been the fore front of innovation through bringing unique ideas to fulfillment. We have developed more patents, prescriptions, and things then the world has seen in a relatively short existence. The common denominator behind most is the ability to risk and be rewarded for that risk.

In the article the point was when will investment and risk be taken out on these ideas. With consumer confidence down, regulations changing, your competition possibly being funded by special interest legislation, unionization, taxing of health care benefits, cap and trade of CO2, 401K in the basement, Social Security about to bust, this all snowballs into a skittish slow growth economy. These ideas will not see the light of day!

[footstepsfrom#27]

As discussed earlier we agree there isn't time to read/understand nor have I read the whole bill. Parts effecting me and my job are foremost worth understanding. I am not a policy maker/official and unfortunately deferred this responsibility to my elected representation. Most damming is they didn't read or understand this, yet it passed anyway.
So in essense you're saying we're discussing this with 2nd hand knowledge. I agree...which is why I'm not predicting success or failure but only urging restraint in the face of an admission that we don't KNOW more than we're reading in the press...that seems reasonable...no? I'm not sure who you're referring to that didn't read the bill...as you noted these guys have staffs who go over this...so I'm not sure what the point you're making is. I recognize people in Congress have a staff for a reason.
However in doing their elected job, senator Coburn posted for his constituents his interpretation of the negative. He has the staff to do so, this was posted above:http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...9-8091b533464f
The link doesn't appear relevant...check again. But every senator has an opinion on this...largely along party lines. I'd rather actually spend some time over a few months digesting as much of the bill as possible...and in fact that's what I have to do for business purposes...though i wont' read it all.

[footstepsfrom#27]

There is no doubt for years the US has been the fore front of innovation through bringing unique ideas to fulfillment. We have developed more patents, prescriptions, and things then the world has seen in a relatively short existence. The common denominator behind most is the ability to risk and be rewarded for that risk.

In the article the point was when will investment and risk be taken out on these ideas. With consumer confidence down, regulations changing, your competition possibly being funded by special interest legislation, unionization, taxing of health care benefits, cap and trade of CO2, 401K in the basement, Social Security about to bust, this all snowballs into a skittish slow growth economy. These ideas will not see the light of day!
That's a pretty massive assumption. Essentially you're invoking the idea that the US economy will suddenly and violently react in a way it has never before reacted at the grass roots level simply becaues times are tough. I will remind you that the largest growth in the history of this country came on the heels of the sorriest economy...the WWII economic boom rose from the ashes of 1930's era depression.

As an entrepreneur, and one who works in consulting with other entrepreneurs...I don't see happening what you're suggesting.

[Seamus]

It's easy to use th word "buy" or "spend"...it has more negative connotations than the word "invest"...which denotes perceived return in the future. But you suggest "the economics are not there". What does that MEAN? It sounds like a politically loaded phrase used to generate disbelief in the current initiative, not something factually oriented. Also...the so called "multiplyer effect"...the expected ROI in the secondary economic impact analysis that you phrase as "every dollar spent..."...is dismissed with, "How can anyone expect...?" The fact is...lots of economists DO expect that. The numbers vary along political lines to a great extent, but I will submit the federal CDFI program running inside the US Treasury as an example of how and where we need to be investing. CDFI funds return a 2700% ROI on each public dollar spent through private equity partnership BEFORE the multiplyer effect.

The only investment in government worth spending, is in the people.

I didn't see in the constitution that the government was formed to secure a profit.

CDFI funding is a fraction (this year $22 billion applied with $5 billion allocated) of the stimulus. This is a tax credit, so you need to make the money first to get a rebate. This needs to happen in cretin areas of the country tailored to low income communities.
Calling this government spending is a joke, it is government giving a tax break to a company that meets their criteria and capping it. There is a difference between the government borrowing money / going into debt than allowing a company to keep some of their taxes. I would support more CDFI funding increase the cap and loosen the requirements to help.

[Seamus]

That's a pretty massive assumption. Essentially you're invoking the idea that the US economy will suddenly and violently react in a way it has never before reacted at the grass roots level simply becaues times are tough. I will remind you that the largest growth in the history of this country came on the heels of the sorriest economy...the WWII economic boom rose from the ashes of 1930's era depression.

As an entrepreneur, and one who works in consulting with other entrepreneurs...I don't see happening what you're suggesting.

This is a different time than in the past, the debt, poor legislation with new regulations are changing the road to recovery. The violence in housing and the market has happened with recent descriptions of "not as bad as expected". A reaction like nothing else seen. On top of it what is promising from a business perspective right now to look forward to?
If you own stock, will you buy soon? Why? What is a catalyst you see out there? I try to be positive, I just don't see any reason to be right now.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The only investment in government worth spending, is in the people.
I think that's what we're talking about.
CDFI funding is a fraction (this year $22 billion applied with $5 billion allocated) of the stimulus. This is a tax credit, so you need to make the money first to get a rebate. This needs to happen in cretin areas of the country tailored to low income communities.
Calling this government spending is a joke, it is government giving a tax break to a company that meets their criteria and capping it. There is a difference between the government borrowing money / going into debt than allowing a company to keep some of their taxes. I would support more CDFI funding increase the cap and loosen the requirements to help.
I don't really understand what you're saying...but CDFI funding this year is roughly $100 million, not $22 billion. I'm not sure what you mean by "tax credit"...are you referencing the tax credits in the stimulus? As memory serves it's roughly 39% of the total....still not sure what you're talking about here.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I try to be positive, I just don't see any reason to be right now.
I get that...

Gotta go jogging...thanks for the convo.

[watermock]

All you need to look at is GNP vs. Spending to see we are totally ****ed.

It's not rocket science.

[Pseudofool]

Look, I understand all you job-filled dudes don't want your HDTV's to have to shrink but the reality is we've all been living far beyond any of our means--and while we've been doing that, we've happily allowed coporate interest to ship low-skilled labor jobs overseas by the hundred thousands (because it was totally rad for our 401Ks or our portofolio: look ma, I made money without doing ****!). Our life is not sustainable if we don't (as either culture or a government or even a private sector) start creating low-skilled labor jobs. Given that our labor is expensive, the private sector isn't going to do it--unless we're willing to go through a really heartless depression where we see our population simply decrease and become desperate and the standard of living is therefor lowered (which sounds both ruthless and pie-in-the-sky), we need some entity (any entity) to step in and provide people with work and money.

This just in: Pure Capitalism was never sustainable.

[Pseudofool]

All you need to look at is GNP vs. Spending to see we are totally ****ed.

It's not rocket science. Yeah, GNP is totally a legitimate measure of the economy. If you cared to you could have looked at GNP v. wages over the past two decades and decide that were ****ed.

[cutthemdown]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Fiscally-stressed states are using their stimulus dollars to satisfy immediate needs rather than undertake longer-term reforms, according to a government report released Wednesday.
For example, states are spending education funds to prevent layoffs and maintain programs, a Government Accountability Office report found.
Trying to survive one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression, state and school district officials say they don't have the money to undertake projects such as building new schools and expanding early-childhood education.
Similarly, states are using nearly half their infrastructure funds for pavement improvements, which can be implemented quickly and don't require environmental clearances and in-depth design work.
The $787 billion recovery act walks a fine line between trying to get funds out quickly to stimulate the economy and spurring longer-term initiatives.




A trillion dollars worth of new paved roads......oh yeah!!!!!!



It's great they are using it for teachers but really the stimulus wasn't the education recovery act, or they pave a bunch of roads act.


The whole notion we get infrastructure for it is sort of a lie. Sounds like most going for some new asphalt.

[watermock]

I should of said debt as a % of GNP.

[Smiling Assassin27]

My recommendation would be to look at the first stimulus to determine if we really need MORE of the same. Good article in the USA Today about where the money is going. Hint: If your county voted for Obama, you're rolling in it. If your county voted for McCain, you're rolling in half as much. The White House claims that this is a statistical anomaly, but given this Admin's perpetual existence in the land of Politics, I find this hard to believe. Given all the pork in the bill, this looks more like a Democratic wish list of pet projects, not a job stimulator. Interesting how they found ONLY pundits who claim that there's NO WAY it could be politically motivated. In DC, with the whores and pimps that run COngress and the WH, it's not only possible, but entirely plausible.

We already know that their 'jobs saved/created' theory is arbitrary, deceptive, and flat out wrong. How one can listen to what this administration is shoveling without shaking your head in disbelief is beyond me.

Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.
That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.

"Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says.

The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.

Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person

Not all of the money favors places that supported Obama. About a third of the $17 billion, or $5.5 billion, in contracts that the federal government has signed for projects ranging from repaving runways to cleaning up nuclear waste has gone overwhelmingly to counties that supported McCain.

Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents.

But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role."

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

[Rohirrim]

Warren Buffett backs the idea. Since I'm going to concede he knows a whole lot more about the subject than me, I'll go with his advice. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/09/warren-buffett-backs-seco_n_228460.html

[bronclvr]

Look, I understand all you job-filled dudes don't want your HDTV's to have to shrink but the reality is we've all been living far beyond any of our means--and while we've been doing that, we've happily allowed coporate interest to ship low-skilled labor jobs overseas by the hundred thousands (because it was totally rad for our 401Ks or our portofolio: look ma, I made money without doing ****!)


I have been living BELOW my means for 25 Years, so it is not all of us-I am hoping your are generalizing here, as there are many who have lived within their means and have gotten caught up in this mess-

As for low-skiiled labor going overseas, it wasn't "corporate interest"-it was Joe six-pack looking for something cheaper (and be damned where it is made or whose job it effects-we have a "me first" mentaility now)-corporate America only gave the American consumer what he asked for-

[cutthemdown]

I also respect Buffet a lot.

[cutthemdown]

I'm not surprised though, to the victor goes the spoils.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Good article in the USA Today about where the money is going. Hint: If your county voted for Obama, you're rolling in it. If your county voted for McCain, you're rolling in half as much. The White House claims that this is a statistical anomaly, but given this Admin's perpetual existence in the land of Politics, I find this hard to believe. Given all the pork in the bill, this looks more like a Democratic wish list of pet projects, not a job stimulator. Interesting how they found ONLY pundits who claim that there's NO WAY it could be politically motivated. In DC, with the whores and pimps that run COngress and the WH, it's not only possible, but entirely plausible.
Here's what I find interesting. You question the "pundits" opinions quoted in the same story tasked with apparently bringing this to light in the first place. The intent of the USA Today piece seems to be to suggest some kind of political motivation...yet they're doing this by quoting a source that directly disagrees with them? The "pundits" BTW...are the OMB Watch...a government watchdog/non partisan group that monitors the OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and their mission is to bring open source availability to government and information. Scanning Google I was unable to locate any serious attempt to paint the OMB Watch in partisan terms save a single notation by the conservative group Research in Media, located on a blog. Checking the OMB Watch website for evidence of bias, I examined their funding sources, their board of directors, staffers, mission statement, publications archives and a few other things and found evidence of fairly even balance in representation...Microsoft is represented...so is the AFL-CIO. I found statements critical of both the Bush and Obama administration decisions. In short...the "pundits" seem to be what they say they are...a non partisan government watchdog group. So that leaves your theory in dissaray...but also begs for an answer as to why the USA Today would quote only this if their intent is to disparrage the Obama administration:
Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says
I suppose it could be some nefarious plot by USA Today...quoting an opposing viewpoint by a non-partisan research group just to throw us off the track...but do you really think their average reader is that sophisticated?

You're fairly good evidence to the contrary.

I think the real answer lies with the fact that most areas of the country in poor economic conditions that would be likely targets for assistance probably voted along party lines for Obama...I doubt to many heavily republican districts are experiencing equivilent problems, since the socio-economic demographics represent higher income brackets in the GOP. That really seems pretty obvious.

Not surprised you missed it...

[barryr]

That's these kinds of people's thinking. Just keep throwing money around and hope something sticks someplace, somewhere and call everything going great. Now I hear they are spending 18 million, yes 18 MILLION, to update the WH website. Yes, give the government all the power and free reign to spend and they always make such sound decisions. Idiots.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/mistress-hush-money.jpg
</center>