http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/dem-senator-second-stimulus-probably-needed.html
QuoteAs job losses mount, Democrats are growing impatient about the impact of the massive stimulus package passed earlier this year, with talk beginning on Capitol Hill about a possible second stimulus bill.
Excellent news. I need me some more right wing hand wringing.
Pff, good luck getting it through Congress. They were in a hurry to pass the last one without proper study because OMG NEED JOBS NOW. They still have hundreds of billions of dollars unspent.
:bleeding: We're in debt enough.
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2009, 05:01:36 PM
Pff, good luck getting it through Congress. They were in a hurry to pass the last one without proper study because OMG NEED JOBS NOW. They still have hundreds of billions of dollars unspent.
Indeed. They barely got the first one through, and the backlash has been significant.
Oh no! But the first spendulus has hardly even begun to spend! What, are they going to try and do stimulus right this time?? <_<
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 05:04:06 PM
:bleeding: We're in debt enough.
I am beginning to think that US debt doesnt actually matter. It was too large before the bail out packages but that didnt stop anything. The US is too important to let fail. They are the GM of the industrialized nations.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2009, 05:11:42 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on July 06, 2009, 05:01:36 PM
Pff, good luck getting it through Congress. They were in a hurry to pass the last one without proper study because OMG NEED JOBS NOW. They still have hundreds of billions of dollars unspent.
Indeed. They barely got the first one through, and the backlash has been significant.
Not really. A bunch of white trash hicks running around with a few FOX News camera crews does not constitute significance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 05:04:06 PM
:bleeding: We're in debt enough.
I am beginning to think that US debt doesnt actually matter. It was too large before the bail out packages but that didnt stop anything. The US is too important to let fail. They are the GM of the industrialized nations.
On the other hand, if they run into enough trouble that they're going to fail, how could the other industrialized economies stop them?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 05:04:06 PM
:bleeding: We're in debt enough.
I am beginning to think that US debt doesnt actually matter. It was too large before the bail out packages but that didnt stop anything. The US is too important to let fail. They are the GM of the industrialized nations.
The limits that define "too large" are our supply of ink and paper. We're good on both accounts.
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Not really. A bunch of white trash hicks running around with a few FOX News camera crews does not constitute significance.
Polls show that around half the country is concerned about the size of the deficit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2009, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Not really. A bunch of white trash hicks running around with a few FOX News camera crews does not constitute significance.
Polls show that around half the country is concerned about the size of the deficit.
Though not concerned enough to do something. As our hallowed former VP said. "Deficits don't matter."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2009, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Not really. A bunch of white trash hicks running around with a few FOX News camera crews does not constitute significance.
Polls show that around half the country is concerned about the size of the deficit.
Lots of Dems as well, are getting quite concerned. Colin Powell, Warren Buffet, both Obama supporters, have voiced their concerns. Good thing that at least one news channel isn't in the tank too far to report some of the spending concerns.
A week or two ago, even President Obama said the country was out of money!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2009, 05:04:06 PM
:bleeding: We're in debt enough.
We're in recession even more than enough. :bleeding:
If I thought after the recession was over we would cut back and pay down the debts I would be in favor of this.
Since the right will just cut taxes and ramp up spending and the left will just ramp up spending when the good times return I am not enthusiastic.
I am pretty much clueless at this point.
I hate the idea of this stimulus bullshit ebcause it is pretty obvious it has very little to do with stimulus, and is mostly just about the Dems going fucking nuts and spending insane amounts of money on any and every pet project they can think up.
On the other hand, I don't pretend to know what should be done about the recession, or how to get out of it. On the other other hand, I am pretty confident the people calling the shots don't know either.
The poor Dems were ready to party down with absolute power only to discover the country is so fucked that they couldn't give as much money to their supporters as they liked.
So they have to call it 'stimulus' :P
Ok I am kidding...or am I? <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 06, 2009, 06:16:16 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 06, 2009, 05:43:36 PM
Not really. A bunch of white trash hicks running around with a few FOX News camera crews does not constitute significance.
Polls show that around half the country is concerned about the size of the deficit.
Great. Does this mean they'll start voting for politicians who run on a platform of cutting the military budget, medicare, medicaid, and social security budgets? For some reason, I think not. This 'concern' is relatively worthless if every significant item is off limits.
Nobody knows what will help. At this point I wonder if massive government spending and bureacracy is so much a part of the economy that we can't cut it.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 08:47:51 AM
I am pretty much clueless at this point.
I hate the idea of this stimulus bullshit ebcause it is pretty obvious it has very little to do with stimulus, and is mostly just about the Dems going fucking nuts and spending insane amounts of money on any and every pet project they can think up.
On the other hand, I don't pretend to know what should be done about the recession, or how to get out of it. On the other other hand, I am pretty confident the people calling the shots don't know either.
Agreed on this. And not too happy about another "stimulus", especially seeing how the last one was handled, or in fact a multi-year project of all kinds of spending, governmental programs, etc. As I said at the time, much of it wasn't about stimulating the economy and should have been done up separately, apart from the stim stuff.
Quote from: Berkut on July 07, 2009, 08:47:51 AM
On the other hand, I don't pretend to know what should be done about the recession, or how to get out of it. On the other other hand, I am pretty confident the people calling the shots don't know either.
it's really simple in fact: there is nothing you can do on the short term.
Quebec is getting out well so far because of massive government spending... way before there was any hint of a recession (thanks to a collapsing bridge). So there's lots of work being done right now.
On the other hand, when the rest of Canada springs forward from the recession by the end of this year or early next year, we will stay behind and we will see our unemployement again rise to the 10-11%.
The stimulus won't hurt, but it won't help either. As with any government, it takes time to get things done, so before that money is entirely spent, it takes about 12-18 months minimum from the time it's allocated in Congress (or House of Commons for us).
The problem of Canada is that borrowing money is quite expensive right now (my latest loan for the company is @7.1% wich is fucking insane considering the Bank of Canada rate is at 0,25%) and in the US, there's simply not enough money to be lended.
On the one hand, you need to prevent your banks from cascade failing again so there is need for stronger regulations, for more reserve. On the other hand, when there is an higher reserve for the banks, there is less money to loan, hence the economic growth is slower.
The worst of the crisis could have been averted, but once you're in there, doesn't really matter how many billions you poor in it, you're stuck there for a little while, untile the consumers&investors regain confidence. The one who can predict when that happens will make a shitload of money.
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 09:15:57 AM
Agreed on this. And not too happy about another "stimulus", especially seeing how the last one was handled, or in fact a multi-year project of all kinds of spending, governmental programs, etc. As I said at the time, much of it wasn't about stimulating the economy and should have been done up separately, apart from the stim stuff.
I like the US political system :)
But it has really one big flaw, wich happens to be it's greatest strenght: individuals have way too much power.
Having really no party-line like in a Bristish system, you need to convince every single congressman/woman to vote for your project and they know it. So they ask... and ask... and ask... and you either get their vote for your important project or you do not. Some are honest and vote for what they believe is best for the country/their voters some other will syphon evey bit of cash they can for economically worhtless projects.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 07, 2009, 08:58:39 AM
Nobody knows what will help. At this point I wonder if massive government spending and bureacracy is so much a part of the economy that we can't cut it.
Hard to do in time of recession. You decrease your costs one way (less people to pay), but increase them the other way (unemployment insurance, less taxes perceived, etc, etc.). In a period of economic boom, rationalizing the government is good, people laid off can easily find jobs elsewhere, plus, when the next recession actually hits, you're in a better shape with lower costs.
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2009, 05:08:16 PM
Quote from: KRonn on July 07, 2009, 09:15:57 AM
Agreed on this. And not too happy about another "stimulus", especially seeing how the last one was handled, or in fact a multi-year project of all kinds of spending, governmental programs, etc. As I said at the time, much of it wasn't about stimulating the economy and should have been done up separately, apart from the stim stuff.
I like the US political system :)
But it has really one big flaw, wich happens to be it's greatest strenght: individuals have way too much power.
Having really no party-line like in a Bristish system, you need to convince every single congressman/woman to vote for your project and they know it. So they ask... and ask... and ask... and you either get their vote for your important project or you do not. Some are honest and vote for what they believe is best for the country/their voters some other will syphon evey bit of cash they can for economically worhtless projects.
Or buy them off like Mary Kaptur and a 3.5 billion for Ohio nad the Midwest in the Cap and Trade bill.
:)
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 07, 2009, 07:32:36 PM
Or buy them off like Mary Kaptur and a 3.5 billion for Ohio nad the Midwest in the Cap and Trade bill.
:)
lol
Marcy Kaptur - D, AFL-CIO
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 07, 2009, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 07, 2009, 07:32:36 PM
Or buy them off like Mary Kaptur and a 3.5 billion for Ohio nad the Midwest in the Cap and Trade bill.
:)
lol
Marcy Kaptur - D, AFL-CIO
:lol:
I'll forgive her this time, since she did her job and grabbed what she could.
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2009, 05:04:54 PM
it's really simple in fact: there is nothing you can do on the short term.
This.
The root of the problem is that Congress and the President have very little ability to improve the economy (though they can certainly make it worse), but for some reason people think they can. Because of this, Congressmen can't just do nothing... they have to pretend what the people think is correct if they want to be reelected.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 07:13:21 AM
This.
The root of the problem is that Congress and the President have very little ability to improve the economy (though they can certainly make it worse), but for some reason people think they can. Because of this, Congressmen can't just do nothing... they have to pretend what the people think is correct if they want to be reelected.
I think you're stating a very questionable opinion as a fact. Bad recessions tend to spiral into depressions without any intervention, we've got a whole of Guilded Age to learn from. At that point it's not just the "dead wood" that gets swept away.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 07:13:21 AM
that Congress and the President have very little ability to improve the economy
I bet if they set taxes to zero the economy would improve. :huh:
I don't get how they have very little ability to improve the economy. It seems to me they have plenty of power to do so.
It is just that economics is so complex it is very difficult to know just what to do to improve it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 07:52:00 AM
I bet if they set taxes to zero the economy would improve. :huh:
Ok I stand corrected. If Congress did stuff that we all know there's a snowball's chance in hell of them ever doing, they might be able to improve the economy. :P
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 07:54:39 AM
Ok I stand corrected. If Congress did stuff that we all know there's a snowball's chance in hell of them ever doing, they might be able to improve the economy. :P
I was making a ridiculous example to make a point. :P
The way they are going about trying to turn the economy around, by passing big pork bills on deficit money, is indeed unlikely to turn the economy around but could make it worse you are right on that one.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 07:13:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 07, 2009, 05:04:54 PM
it's really simple in fact: there is nothing you can do on the short term.
This.
The root of the problem is that Congress and the President have very little ability to improve the economy (though they can certainly make it worse), but for some reason people think they can. Because of this, Congressmen can't just do nothing... they have to pretend what the people think is correct if they want to be reelected.
You are right as far as The Government being expected to take care of the economy. To some extent its expected that if the economy is toast the 'throw the bums out' thing gets some traction. But at some point the Feds were made the guarantors of financial prosperity.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
But at some point the Feds were made the guarantors of financial prosperity.
Yeah they have kinda sucked at that the past 20 years. They love to pump up economic bubbles.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 07:13:21 AM
The root of the problem is that Congress and the President have very little ability to improve the economy (though they can certainly make it worse), but for some reason people think they can. Because of this, Congressmen can't just do nothing... they have to pretend what the people think is correct if they want to be reelected.
What about all of the appointees that the President makes to all of the regulatory committees like the Federal Reserve and the SEC? I would think that would give the President the ability to influence the economy good or bad based on who they put into those positions and what regulations they enact.
Quote from: Vince on July 08, 2009, 09:18:43 AM
What about all of the appointees that the President makes to all of the regulatory committees like the Federal Reserve and the SEC? I would think that would give the President the ability to influence the economy good or bad based on who they put into those positions and what regulations they enact.
I think that all you need to do is look at the Madoff case and how well his outfit was regulated to see how effective the SEC is lately.
In years past I thought that the (Greenspan-chaired) Fed was OSSUM, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 07:52:00 AM
I bet if they set taxes to zero the economy would improve. :huh:
Probably not. You'd have to lay off alot of people.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 08, 2009, 09:40:02 AM
Probably not. You'd have to lay off alot of people.
Only in a world where the US government worries about deficit spending but in this brave new world where endless money can be printed to pay for government programs why should there be any taxation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 08, 2009, 09:50:38 AM
Only in a world where the US government worries about deficit spending but in this brave new world where endless money can be printed to pay for government programs why should there be any taxation.
CC for President!
Quote from: Valmy on July 08, 2009, 08:50:27 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on July 08, 2009, 08:33:29 AM
But at some point the Feds were made the guarantors of financial prosperity.
Yeah they have kinda sucked at that the past 20 years. They love to pump up economic bubbles.
Which is exactly what the Pres and Congress have wanted. The economy has to run great while they are in office, not ten years down the line.
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 09:27:25 AM
I think that all you need to do is look at the Madoff case and how well his outfit was regulated to see how effective the SEC is lately.
Isn't that exactly the point? If you appoint the regulators who are against regulation, then the regulatory bodies they'd be heading wouldn't be very effective at regulating.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:10:31 AM
Isn't that exactly the point? If you appoint the regulators who are against regulation, then the regulatory bodies they'd be heading wouldn't be very effective at regulating.
What's not entirely clear to me is whether or not Madoff was within the SEC's purview. Hedge funds were intended to be minimally regulated investment vehicles for wealthy, financially saavy clients. Isn't fraud of this type the responsibility of the local DA?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 11:20:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:10:31 AM
Isn't that exactly the point? If you appoint the regulators who are against regulation, then the regulatory bodies they'd be heading wouldn't be very effective at regulating.
What's not entirely clear to me is whether or not Madoff was within the SEC's purview. Hedge funds were intended to be minimally regulated investment vehicles for wealthy, financially saavy clients. Isn't fraud of this type the responsibility of the local DA?
If he wasn't within the SEC's purview, then why did the SEC repeatedly "look into" his firm? IIRC they did so at least once back when that Markopolous dude first ratted him out... they just did a terrible job and found nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 08, 2009, 11:20:07 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 11:10:31 AM
Isn't that exactly the point? If you appoint the regulators who are against regulation, then the regulatory bodies they'd be heading wouldn't be very effective at regulating.
What's not entirely clear to me is whether or not Madoff was within the SEC's purview. Hedge funds were intended to be minimally regulated investment vehicles for wealthy, financially saavy clients. Isn't fraud of this type the responsibility of the local DA?
The SEC isn't responsible for direct oversight as with mutual funds and publically traded companies, but they are responsible for investigating securities fraud once it comes to their attention (and it did).
Quote from: Caliga on July 08, 2009, 11:21:53 AM
If he wasn't within the SEC's purview, then why did the SEC repeatedly "look into" his firm? IIRC they did so at least once back when that Markopolous dude first ratted him out... they just did a terrible job and found nothing.
I don't know.
Quote from: DGuller on July 08, 2009, 07:45:26 AM
Bad recessions tend to spiral into depressions without any intervention, we've got a whole of Guilded Age to learn from.
How far back in history are we thinking was the time of guilds?
:lol: