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

http://www.reuters.com/article/usMkt...33371020090707

* 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.

Barry is the ****ing Devil

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

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.

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

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.

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'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.

I asked a question on the Palin thread...still waiting for your answer.

Footsteps, I love the challenge, lets start off with the wide right winger Huffington Post:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._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?

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

Laura Tyson bid for the second stimulus bill:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=ajQbZ.WrAVwQ

The stimulus bill tries to control our health care and doctors: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=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/inde...9-8091b533464f

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.

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."

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?

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

You forgot the link: http://www.theweek.com/article/index...ating_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.

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.
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?

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.

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.
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:

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.

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

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/.../index/a/23205

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/.../index/a/22891

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.

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.

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.
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?