as long as china does most of the debt buying.....what's chinese for default?
China won't be doing the defaulting my friend, we will. The result of an event like that is not something I would wish on anyone, including you. Do you have any idea what happens to a country when it defaults on it's debt?
China won't be doing the defaulting my friend, we will. The result of an event like that is not something I would wish on anyone, including you. Do you have any idea what happens to a country when it defaults on it's debt?
The IMF bails them out?
__________________
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."
Location: Walton/Okaloosa County and a little south alabama thrown in.
Posts: 1,955
Thanks: 622
Thanked 637 Times in 369 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sowalgayboi
Response in red.
SWGB, you are correct, most of these are laudable goals, taken one by one. The problem is that we are borrowing money to fund every one of them. I would love to have a beautiful mansion that is hurricane-proof, but not at the price of borrowing myself into bankruptcy. Same goes for the Rolls, the filet mignon, etc, etc.
And before you start, I totally agree that what has occured to present can be placed at Bush's feet. What scares me is that Obama may see his trillion and raise him one.
God I love the internet! This is what it is best at! I can only imagine how more involved we will all be in regulating government in the years to come. Pretty soon they won't be able to slip anything by without somebody noticing!
God I love the internet! This is what it is best at! I can only imagine how more involved we will all be in regulating government in the years to come. Pretty soon they won't be able to slip anything by without somebody noticing!
I agree with your optimistic forecast.
Right now, I'm a little discouraged that I'm not finding more discussions of these details. I am so against the idea of this much "stimulus" that I can't adequately express it!
I sure hope there is some scrutiny before anything gets passed.
__________________
They’re all for diversity in everything but thought. George Will
God I love the internet! This is what it is best at! I can only imagine how more involved we will all be in regulating government in the years to come. Pretty soon they won't be able to slip anything by without somebody noticing!
...the cynic in me says they are already one step ahead.
I hope you are correct.
__________________
The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open.
SWGB, you are correct, most of these are laudable goals, taken one by one. The problem is that we are borrowing money to fund every one of them. I would love to have a beautiful mansion that is hurricane-proof, but not at the price of borrowing myself into bankruptcy. Same goes for the Rolls, the filet mignon, etc, etc.
And before you start, I totally agree that what has occured to present can be placed at Bush's feet. What scares me is that Obama may see his trillion and raise him one.
I'm actually not going to go down that path. Right now we need to move forward.
I'm no fan of deficit spending, however the alternative is to let the financial crisis play out. That could involve millions losing jobs. All of my grand parents lived through the depression and I remember them telling me it was truly nightmarish.
Here's a new AP article. I guess the Devil's in the Details regarding how quickly we will be stimulated. I am not saying I am for or against all of the infrastructure projects included in the bill, as I am for some and against others. I just don't see why they can't include the non-stimulus projects in the standard appropriations process, especially since the FY 2008-09 omnibus bill has yet to be passed and is going to be voted on after the AARP. The reason is political expediency but I am not sure this is the appropriate legislative vehicle.
Much in Obama stimulus bill won't hit economy soon By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Monday, January 19, 2009; 10:59 PM
WASHINGTON -- Much of President-elect Barack Obama's effort of $825 billion or so to rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure won't hit the economy for years, according to an analysis by congressional economists.
Less than half of $30 billion in highway construction funds detailed by House Democrats would be released into the economy over the next four years, concludes the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Less than $4 billion in highway construction money would reach the economy by September 2010.
The CBO analysis doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts by Democrats to rush aid to cash-strapped state governments. But it illustrates just how difficult it can be to use public investment to rush money into the economy. It usually takes bids and contracts to announce such developments, which invariably takes time.
Overall, only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered in the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year-and-an-half.
The findings, released to lawmakers on Sunday, call into question the effectiveness of congressional Democrats' efforts to pump up the economy through old-fashioned public works projects like roads, bridges and repairs of public housing.
And other pieces, like efforts to bring broadband Internet service to rural and underserved areas won't get started in earnest for years, while just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year.
Still, other elements of Obama's $825 billion economic recovery plan, such as $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments, will be distributed into the economy more quickly. But Republicans are poised to attack the bill for spending too much.
The Obama transition has stressed that a combination of old and new federal investments will help the economy recover, as well as tax cuts and other steps. Obama economic advisers and their allies on Capitol Hill have sought to identify federal programs that can deliver dollars fast, like food stamps and a boost in unemployment benefits.
At the same time, defenders of brick-and-mortar projects like federal building and school construction are poised to reap benefits from the big recovery package.
Location: Walton/Okaloosa County and a little south alabama thrown in.
Posts: 1,955
Thanks: 622
Thanked 637 Times in 369 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachSiO2
Here's a new AP article. I guess the Devil's in the Details regarding how quickly we will be stimulated. I am not saying I am for or against all of the infrastructure projects included in the bill, as I am for some and against others. I just don't see why they can't include the non-stimulus projects in the standard appropriations process, especially since the FY 2008-09 omnibus bill has yet to be passed and is going to be voted on after the AARP. The reason is political expediency but I am not sure this is the appropriate legislative vehicle.
Much in Obama stimulus bill won't hit economy soon
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Monday, January 19, 2009; 10:59 PM
WASHINGTON -- Much of President-elect Barack Obama's effort of $825 billion or so to rebuild roads, bridges and other infrastructure won't hit the economy for years, according to an analysis by congressional economists.
Less than half of $30 billion in highway construction funds detailed by House Democrats would be released into the economy over the next four years, concludes the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Less than $4 billion in highway construction money would reach the economy by September 2010.
The CBO analysis doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts by Democrats to rush aid to cash-strapped state governments. But it illustrates just how difficult it can be to use public investment to rush money into the economy. It usually takes bids and contracts to announce such developments, which invariably takes time.
Overall, only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered in the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year-and-an-half.
The findings, released to lawmakers on Sunday, call into question the effectiveness of congressional Democrats' efforts to pump up the economy through old-fashioned public works projects like roads, bridges and repairs of public housing.
And other pieces, like efforts to bring broadband Internet service to rural and underserved areas won't get started in earnest for years, while just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year.
Still, other elements of Obama's $825 billion economic recovery plan, such as $275 billion worth of tax cuts to 95 percent of filers and a huge infusion of help for state governments, will be distributed into the economy more quickly. But Republicans are poised to attack the bill for spending too much.
The Obama transition has stressed that a combination of old and new federal investments will help the economy recover, as well as tax cuts and other steps. Obama economic advisers and their allies on Capitol Hill have sought to identify federal programs that can deliver dollars fast, like food stamps and a boost in unemployment benefits.
At the same time, defenders of brick-and-mortar projects like federal building and school construction are poised to reap benefits from the big recovery package.
It is about time the REpublicans in Washington remembered they are supposed to be the fiscal conservatives.
The Following User Says Thank You to idlewind For This Useful Post:
I know I posted a House Approps Comm. summary earlier, but here is the link to the actual text of HR 1- AARP bill. It's only a brief 647 pages long so I am sure there is nothing hidden in there.
In a related note, there has been ongoing squabbling about the timing of the funding actually being spent, and whether it would be stimulating. This morning with George S., Speaker Pelosi stated very clearly, "Seventy-five percent, 18 months," she said. "We're committed to that."
If we are going to use 18 months as the benchmark, can someone explain to me why we would fund the other 25% of the projects as part of a "stimulus" package? I can understand if we are going to consider it as part of the typical appropriations process, but not as stimulus. I believe it is a perfect example of stating we will not do earmarks to individual projects as part of the bill; however, we will earmark funding to individual programs that will likely favor specific interest groups that we can hide within the overall context of a stimulus bill. Either way, it's Christmas time and business as usual.
In a related note, there has been ongoing squabbling about the timing of the funding actually being spent, and whether it would be stimulating. This morning with George S., Speaker Pelosi stated very clearly, "Seventy-five percent, 18 months," she said. "We're committed to that."
If we are going to use 18 months as the benchmark, can someone explain to me why we would fund the other 25% of the projects as part of a "stimulus" package? I can understand if we are going to consider it as part of the typical appropriations process, but not as stimulus. I believe it is a perfect example of stating we will not do earmarks to individual projects as part of the bill; however, we will earmark funding to individual programs that will likely favor specific interest groups that we can hide within the overall context of a stimulus bill. Either way, it's Christmas time and business as usual.
Because a significant percentage of the stimulus is not temporary, it includes spending increases that are long term, recurring spending on government programs. Did you honestly think Democrats weren't going to leverage this thing to pump up the size of government?
Which makes for some interesting back of the envelope calculations on how much government will grow under Democrat control. Assume conservatively that 30% of the stimulus will go to programs that will not be cut back after the initial spending is completed. That makes for an increase in the federal budget of about 300 billion annually after two years. (and that's independent of all the other spending the Democrats are currently proposing.) Last year the feds spent 2.73 trillion and took in 2.5 trillion in revenue. Stripping out about 100 billion in spending on the war in Iraq and assume revenue is about the same, you're left with a deficit in 2011 of around a half trillion dollars. That number assumes constant revenue and assumes spending won't increase in other areas. (Which it will, Obama's government funded healthcare alone will cost hundreds of billions annually.)
To put all this into perspective, the Treasury takes in about 1.2 trillion a year in personal income taxes total. If the federal budget grows 3/4 of a trillion over the next four years, you have to wonder where all the new funding is going to come from. It sure as heck isn't going to be covered by tax increases on people making over 250K a year.
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.
And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site. Officially, the committee says this is because the estimates have been superseded as the legislation has moved through committee. No doubt.
Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.
A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.
The report does not analyze the entire $825 billion package assembled by House leaders and aides to President Obama. Parts of the legislation are scheduled to be considered today in the House Appropriations Committee. Other portions of the proposal -- including $275 billion in tax cuts and nearly $200 billion for jobless benefits, health care for the poor and other entitlement programs -- are expected to pour cash into the nation's faltering economy much more quickly.
But the CBO analysis appears to confirm the complaints of many Republicans and other critics, who have long argued that spending money on highway construction and other infrastructure projects is ineffective at quickly jolting a sluggish economy. The report was distributed to reporters yesterday by aides to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
The report also suggests that the House measure would violate Obama's rules for the stimulus package; Obama aides have said they want the bulk of the spending to occur before 2011. Obama has pledged that the measure would save or create at least 3 million jobs over the next two years.
As BeachSio2 indicated above, there has been chatter about this so-called "report." It may not actually be a valid way of assessing the current stimulus package. Here is a link to a Washington Monthly post that tries to lay out what happened. I saw something on Media Matters that said pretty much the same thing, but couldn't find it again this morning.
It appears that the preliminary, incomplete numbers put together by the CBO were distributed to a small handful of lawmakers in both parties earlier in the week. Someone (Republican congressional offices) then passed the misleading data onto the AP, which predictably ran with the incomplete numbers, telling the public that it "will take years before an infrastructure spending program proposed by President-elect Barack Obama will boost the economy."
Other major media outlets quickly followed, and voila, Republicans had a talking point: "Boehner and other Republican aides roamed the Capitol press galleries, flogging the CBO numbers."
I wonder if we'll see the results of final bill run through that same computer program?
I would hope so. I am not sure we are going to get a true consensus on this bill, but let me say I am happy to see that the GOP is suddenly fiscally conservative again. I am happy to see McCain among those at the forefront of the discussion, because even if this is not his area of expertise, we know he does love his country.
My great hope -- and I would not call this a wildest dream, because I think it could very well happen -- is that Obama hammers out a compromise that will do as much to stimulate the economy as the government possibly can. I believe that if the Dems get out of control, we will hear about Emmanuel knocking some heads around or perhaps even see Obama veto a package and send it back.
I know the WSJ seems to think tax cuts are the answer, but many economists seem to believe we are in too deep for that, and it is not acceptable to do nothing.
I appreciated these comments over the weekend from Warren Buffett. He is Friend of Obama but he is obviously a free-marketer (not a socialist ).
SG: But there is debate about whether there should be fiscal stimulus, whether tax cuts work or not. There is all of this academic debate among economists. What do you think? Is that the right way to go with stimulus and tax cuts?
WB: The answer is nobody knows. The economists don’t know. All you know is you throw everything at it and whether it’s more effective if you’re fighting a fire to be concentrating the water flow on this part or that part. You’re going to use every weapon you have in fighting it. And people, they do not know exactly what the effects are. Economists like to talk about it, but in the end they’ve been very, very wrong and most of them in recent years on this. We don’t know the perfect answers on it. What we do know is to stand by and do nothing is a terrible mistake or to follow Hoover-like policies would be a mistake and we don’t know how effective in the short run we don’t know how effective this will be and how quickly things will right themselves. We do know over time the American machine works wonderfully and it will work wonderfully again.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
The Following User Says Thank You to Sharon G For This Useful Post:
FTA: It will take a lot longer than almost anyone thinks for the Obama administration to get the $825 billion stimulus money into the economy. Don't believe me? Read the Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis of the Democrats' plan.
i am happy to see that the gop is suddenly fiscally conservative again. :d i am happy to see mccain among those at the forefront of the discussion, because even if this is not his area of expertise, we know he does love his country.
amen!
__________________
They’re all for diversity in everything but thought. George Will
There's a new CBO report from today that is based on HR1 that I received on email tonight. Unfortunately, its a pdf and I can't get it attached with my berry. I will try to attach it in the morning if someone else doesn't post it first.
"Approximately two-thirds of the spending and tax cuts contained in an economic stimulus package crafted by House Democrats would flow into the economy by the end of fiscal 2010, producing a "noticeable impact on economic growth and employment," congressional budget analysts said yesterday.
In an eagerly awaited analysis of the stimulus package, which is set for a vote in the House tomorrow, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the measure would cost the federal government about $816 billion over the next 10 years and that approximately $526 billion, or about 65 percent, would be spent by the end of September 2010.
That would fall short of President Obama's goal of pushing at least 75 percent of the cash out the door over the next 19 months to create millions of jobs and ease the effects of what many economists say will be the longest, deepest and most painful recession since the Great Depression."......
The Following User Says Thank You to BeachSiO2 For This Useful Post:
Obama should stick to his promise of transparency, and just take the remaining 290 billion and put it in his budgets. Bush used to hide excess spending by pushing it through in appropriations bills.. looks like Obama is going to do the same thing.
Obama should stick to his promise of transparency, and just take the remaining 290 billion and put it in his budgets. Bush used to hide excess spending by pushing it through in appropriations bills.. looks like Obama is going to do the same thing.
As someone who works in a related business, I could make a good argument for a number of infrastructure (surface transportation, green, and water infrastructure) projects that would be able to use that money faster if they did it through the normal appropriations process. The current speed of passing the money into programs that will be overloaded and then shoveled to the state to parcel out by some archaic formula will be a logistical nightmare, not to mention each agency will take a little bit for overhead leaving less to stimulate. I find it somewhat funny that the Taxpayers for Common Sense who hate earmarking finds the stimulus strategy even more worrisome because it will be harder to follow. Here's a piece from an article I was reading.
Lobbyists skirt Obama's earmark ban
Interest groups may still find ways to funnel money to pet projects
The Associated Press
updated 11:57 a.m. ET, Sun., Jan. 25, 2009
New oversights in place Obama, who campaigned promising a more transparent and accountable government, is advocating a system that will eventually let the public track exactly where stimulus money goes through an Internet-powered search engine. In addition, Democratic lawmakers have devised an elaborate oversight system, including a new board to review how the money is spent.
But none of that will happen until after the bill becomes law. Even critics of the earmarks system acknowledge that specifying projects upfront offers some measure of transparency.
"We hate earmarks, but at least it's a way of tracking where influence is had," said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "There is a challenge now that projects will be added behind closed doors without a paper trail."
The Following User Says Thank You to BeachSiO2 For This Useful Post:
Here's an interesting article from USA Today showing which states would receive the most of the $200 billion per the House bill. SC governor Mark Sanford has pledged to refuse all stimulus funds so I wonder if $2.8 billion might change his mind.
Here's an interesting article from USA Today showing which states would receive the most of the $200 billion per the House bill. SC governor Mark Sanford has pledged to refuse all stimulus funds so I wonder if $2.8 billion might change his mind.
WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials vowed Sunday to spend three-quarters of the president's $825 billion stimulus package in 18 months, responding to criticism from Republicans that the money would flow too slowly to jolt the economy.
So, the Pubs who did not want to spend money are now complaining that Dems are not agreeing to spend it fast enough?
At least $40 million or so will repair hazardous sidewalks in Atlanta. Too bad the money cannot be used to prevent Atlanta from flushing raw sewage into the Hooch. OTOH, that problem floats downstream, doesn't it?
BTW, does anyone know who Rahm was thumbing his nose at?
__________________
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."
BTW, does anyone know who Rahm was thumbing his nose at?
I saw the moment on ABC and they did not say. However, I found this link that indicates it was his former House colleagues, which makes sense because he was definitely being silly (inappropriately so ).
I saw the moment on ABC and they did not say. However, I found this link that indicates it was his former House colleagues, which makes sense because he was definitely being silly (inappropriately so ).
Yeah, that makes sense. I had guessed he thumbed his nose at the Bush twins being that he is the new kid on the block. Just kidding, don't put me on probation.
As for the 'tar, it has a short life. I have the attention span of a two year old so it won't be here for long.
__________________
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."
Yeah, that makes sense. I had guessed he thumbed his nose at the Bush twins being that he is the new kid on the block. Just kidding, don't put me on probation.
As for the 'tar, it has a short life. I have the attention span of a two year old so it won't be here for long.
I wonder what it says about Obama that he picked two very smart and hard-working, family oriented guys who have some self-control problems to be his closest advisers? I wouldn't call them classless exactly but oh my, did you hear Biden's joke about justice Roberts?
Obama is clearly the product of being a black kid growing up in a white world, the master of making "no sudden moves," so it's almost like those two and their antics fill some psychological need.
Sorry, carry on with your stimulus analysis.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
So, the Pubs who did not want to spend money are now complaining that Dems are not agreeing to spend it fast enough?
Actually, I think the Pubs point was not in spending money more quickly for projects, but getting relief through tax cuts. The initial Obama plan was about 40% tax cuts, but that is closer to 25-30% now.
The Following User Says Thank You to BeachSiO2 For This Useful Post:
Actually, I think the Pubs point was not in spending money more quickly for projects, but getting relief through tax cuts. The initial Obama plan was about 40% tax cuts, but that is closer to 25-30% now.
Time for some head knocking.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
One interesting part is that this is the House version and there are rules that were set by the House Rules committee (and House leadership) saying how, where, and what type of amendments could be made so that when it gets to the floor vote (tomorrow) there aren't many opportunities for 11th hour additions. The Senate has less restrictions on the amendment process so there could be a flurry of action on their floor when it is under debate. It makes for interesting times...
Actually, I think the Pubs point was not in spending money more quickly for projects, but getting relief through tax cuts. The initial Obama plan was about 40% tax cuts, but that is closer to 25-30% now.
Yeah, that makes sense. Obama's biggest foe in the Congress will likely be his own party.
__________________
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."
Yeah, that makes sense. Obama's biggest foe in the Congress will likely be his own party.
Well the House Dems are getting hit by the House Dems too....
"A key Democrat on Tuesday lambasted the economic stimulus bill that is headed to the House floor, claiming it was put together too quickly and won’t help the economy in the short term.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.), who chairs the Financial Services subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, said on C-SPAN that Democrats have "lost our way" and "shouldn't be pressed by silly deadlines" of getting the bill into law by the Presidents Day recess."
Looks like some big wig democrats are starting to realize this mix and match approach isn't a very good idea. This is exactly how I feel as well, Obama never should have tried to blend a short term emergency stimulus with long term 'transformational' spending.
Quote:
President Obama, who promoted the $825 billion package at the Capitol yesterday, says the proposal serves two functions -- creating jobs and stimulating the economy in the short term, and laying the groundwork for overhauls in energy, health care and infrastructure that would be felt for decades. But some administration supporters say that while they appreciate Obama's intent, the two goals are competing with each other, and that the package could end up missing both targets.
In testimony before the House Budget Committee yesterday, Alice M. Rivlin, who was President Bill Clinton's budget director, suggested splitting the plan, implementing its immediate stimulus components now and taking more time to plan the longer-term transformative spending to make sure it is done right.
"Such a long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away," said Rivlin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. The risk, she said, is that "money will be wasted because the investment elements were not carefully crafted."
The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that only $26 billion of the $355 billion in the stimulus bill would be spent this year, and only $110 billion by the end of 2010. But that is not the real problem with infrastructure spending as a stimulus strategy. The bigger problem is that the government finances the spending by first borrowing the funding from the private sector, taking out of the economy what it later puts in, for no net gain overall. In the process, there is no change in the basic incentives governing economic activity, which do have the power to revive growth. And after the government make-work project ends, then what? Steve Entin best explained the fundamental economics of the problem yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, saying that to end a recession:
Ultimately, labor and capital must shift from declining industries and areas to expanding ones -- but intercepting people as they make the shifts and parking them in government projects for a year just delays the adjustment. And the debt and future taxes raised in the process become permanent burdens that shrink private output and income forever after.
What we want is private sector jobs privately financed in a booming economy, not make-work jobs financed by the public sector that end when the government gravy train ends. Cuts in corporate tax rates, and in the tax rates on capital. Deregulation to allow the market to produce oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and more electricity, providing a low cost reliable energy supply for the rest of the economy, and a booming energy industry. A new strict price rule to guide monetary policy, focusing it only on maintaining stable prices rather than discretionary policy to guide the economy, which has only led to stock market and housing bubbles causing the current chaos. And restrained government spending to reduce government burdens on the economy.
Now what we have is not only a stimulus bill that will not work. What we have is a fraudulent bill that is not even focused on stimulus at all, but on runaway spending for liberal, big government spending programs, meaning more welfare, overgrown bureaucracy, pork, political payoffs, and waste.
...thereby creating more voters for Democratic candidates.
It is a no lose proposition for the Dems. If the stimulus package works, or if the economy recovers in spite of the ill effects of the stimulus package, the Dems will claim credit. If it fails and we go down the tubes, Hoover...I mean Bush will get the blame.
__________________
"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time."
The House voted on this tonight - it passed. But an important note, not one single Republican voted for it. Not a single one. There's hope for the future in that! Not a single one! Man I hope they keep this up!
Sarawind, Kurt's forum rules are that articles should not be posted in their entirety (though I know sometimes people do it) because of copyright issues. Articles of such exceptional length are hard to wade through, anyway -- just quote a few graphs with the highlights and provide a link. Thanks.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
Was not aware of rule. Glad you told me. Thanks! Hope you 'waded through' article as
it's very good.
Well, I'm pretty suspicious of anything that tries to blame most of the recent problems on Fannie and Freddie. Because we all know that in Florida, the problems in the coastal markets are not really due to the actions of low-income families.
There are many culprits, but the lack of regulation of credit default swaps (which had bipartisan support) seems to be the root cause of the collapse of the investment banks.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
Anna Schwartz blames it squarely on Greenspan. I tell you, we would be better off without the Fed, the SEC, FCC, FTC - all the alphabet agencies. They do more harm than good.
BTW, Ms. Schwartz has worked for the Nationall Bureau of Economic Research for 67 years. Wonder what her FICO score is?
Quote:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system.
"The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
"They need to speak frankly to the market and acknowledge how bad the problems are, and acknowledge their own failures in letting this happen. This is what is needed to restore confidence," she told The Sunday Telegraph.
"There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for," she says.
You may be right about coastal markets but what percentage is that in all of the USA? The facts about Fannie and Freddie are stubborn things.
"Stubborn" could also describe anyone trying to blame this whole debacle on one series of actions or one party alone. The problems are now on many fronts and there are multitudes to blame here -- pretty much anyone who ever ignored all the good ol economic rules of thumb that, it turns out, are there for a reason. It's a collective problem, I've participated from time to time to some degree, I dare say most of us have. Except maybe SHELLY.
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
Anna Schwartz blames it squarely on Greenspan. I tell you, we would be better off without the Fed, the SEC, FCC, FTC - all the alphabet agencies. They do more harm than good.
BTW, Ms. Schwartz has worked for the Nationall Bureau of Economic Research for 67 years. Wonder what her FICO score is?
Now that is someone worth listening to. Too old to posture, old enough to actually remember the Great Depression, and brilliant enough to have figured it out!
__________________
Proud to practice indoctrination
at least when it comes to the GATOR NATION
The Following User Says Thank You to Sharon G For This Useful Post:
The Northwest Florida beach communities of South Walton County on the Emerald Coast - from east to west: Inlet Beach, Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach, Seacrest, Camp Creek, WaterSound Beach, Seagrove Beach, Seaside, WaterColor, Grayton Beach, Blue Mountain Beach, Santa Rosa Beach, Dune Allen, Sandestin, Miramar Beach - When you've said SoWal, you've said it all! Directly east is Panama City Beach, and directly west is Destin. Point Washington and Freeport on the bay round out SoWal.
Looking for free SoWal stickers?If you’re not lucky enough to be at the beach, send us the number of stickers you want and a self-addressed stamped envelope to SoWal.com, 174 WaterColor Way #114, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459.
...the cynic in me says they are already one step ahead.
Linear Mode
