Pelosi told reporters that the stock market meltdown, which has caused an estimated $2 trillion loss from pension funds, was a factor in her recommendation for a second stimulus bill. The first relief plan sent out $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples this year.
But for me, NO, NO, NO, NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO!!!! It didn't do shinola the first time. Why on earth do you think it's going to work now?
Things like this are why I don't like to associate myself with the Democratic party, even though most of my stances align with them.
Seriously, some type of stimulus would be a good idea. A repeat of the last plan, however, would not. That doesn't seem to be what's being proposed though:
"Pelosi said a stimulus package would create jobs by investing in public works, increasing food stamps benefits and extending unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless."
Pelosi told reporters that the stock market meltdown, which has caused an estimated $2 trillion loss from pension funds, was a factor in her recommendation for a second stimulus bill. The first relief plan sent out $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples this year.
But for me, NO, NO, NO, NO, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO!!!! It didn't do shinola the first time. Why on earth do you think it's going to work now?
Things like this are why I don't like to associate myself with the Democratic party, even though most of my stances align with them.
Honestly, what's another couple hundred billion on top of the 10 trillion dollar debt we currently have
Congress needs to be completely done away with and get some people in there that know how to balance a budget....like my 20 year old little brother for Christ's sake. Someone please tell them to stop spending money they don't have.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Honestly, what's another couple hundred billion on top of the 10 trillion dollar debt we currently have
Recessions are exactly the time when goverenments should be engaged in deficit spending. That's one good way to get out of them. The mistake was to pile on more debt when times were relatively good.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Honestly, what's another couple hundred billion on top of the 10 trillion dollar debt we currently have
Recessions are exactly the time when goverenments should be engaged in deficit spending. That's one good way to get out of them. The mistake was to pile on more debt when times were relatively good.
Arthur Dent wrote:
Seriously, some type of stimulus would be a good idea. A repeat of the last plan, however, would not. That doesn't seem to be what's being proposed though:
"Pelosi said a stimulus package would create jobs by investing in public works, increasing food stamps benefits and extending unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless."
I'm having a tough time figuring out what's proposed. Is it a repeat *plus* that part? Or is it only that part, which probably shouldn't be branded as a "stimulus package" to avoid confusion with the first one.
G. Keenan wrote:The upside of this meltdown is that people who are still a good ways away from retirement or don't have short term needs for large amounts of cash can make a killing in the long term. The market hasn't bottomed out yet and already stocks of companies that are in no danger of going under are approaching bargain levels. They're only going to go lower. In ten years time people who bought at the bottom could be really sitting pretty.
everyone keeps saying this and of course, this is what we want to hear...but...this can't be a sure thing...it has to be possible that the market doesn't do that, right?
I don't understand that either. After this meltdown of the economy isn't it possible for it to just level off and stay where its at for the forseeable future (or hell, go down even further at a later time after another disaster)?
It's possible insofar as it's possible that the US economy never sees growth again in our lifetimes. But I don't think that's going to happen.
McCain put a real scare into me last night when he started talking about the need to shore up the housing market in order to protect the retirement assets of boomers. If he thinks the objective of any good rescue plan is to prop up asset prices, then he's out of his economic mind.
Asset prices don't drive economic growth. They might reflect investor confidence and material wealth, but asset prices are not the means to economic growth. The extreme amount of leverage in the global economy (using stocks, bonds, property, etc as collateral to take more loans) means that asset prices need to find their equilibrium so investors and borrowers actually know what collateral exists. If the government starts getting involved to prop up housing prices (vs. bringing liquidity to housing markets) for the sake of retirees, be very, very afraid.
Hungary Jack wrote:McCain put a real scare into me last night when he started talking about the need to shore up the housing market in order to protect the retirement assets of boomers. If he thinks the objective of any good rescue plan is to prop up asset prices, then he's out of his economic mind.
Asset prices don't drive economic growth. They might reflect investor confidence and material wealth, but asset prices are not the means to economic growth. The extreme amount of leverage in the global economy (using stocks, bonds, property, etc as collateral to take more loans) means that asset prices need to find their equilibrium so investors and borrowers actually know what collateral exists. If the government starts getting involved to prop up housing prices (vs. bringing liquidity to housing markets) for the sake of retirees, be very, very afraid.
HJ, you mentioned The Economist article where it talked about the US v. European banks loans v. revenues, right? That same issue gave rave reviews of Obama's economic plan over McCain's in many aspects. Of course, he acknowledged both candidates would have to temper their enthusiasm for their plans in office while in a state of financial crisis (and Obama had promised more), but they concluded Obama's plan was sound and more favorable for the short term and long term economy. Do you remember some of the specifics?
Hungary Jack wrote:McCain put a real scare into me last night when he started talking about the need to shore up the housing market in order to protect the retirement assets of boomers. If he thinks the objective of any good rescue plan is to prop up asset prices, then he's out of his economic mind.
Asset prices don't drive economic growth. They might reflect investor confidence and material wealth, but asset prices are not the means to economic growth. The extreme amount of leverage in the global economy (using stocks, bonds, property, etc as collateral to take more loans) means that asset prices need to find their equilibrium so investors and borrowers actually know what collateral exists. If the government starts getting involved to prop up housing prices (vs. bringing liquidity to housing markets) for the sake of retirees, be very, very afraid.
