|
|
Is the $789 billion stimulus package that Congress is about to pass and President Obama about to sign enough for the economy?
Did the Democrats concede too much to the Republicans?
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
2/9/08
|
|
(296 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Apr 4, 2009 12:43 AM
|
Your math is way off. Dividing 789 billion by 309 million gets you thousands of dollars, not millions.
Nobody gets close to 5 figures--not by a mile--except for polygamists and fertility drug addicts.
$789,000,000,000 / 309,000,000 Americans (estimated US population 2007 est.) = $2553/person.
Family of 2: $5106
Family of 3: $7660
Family of 4: $10,213
Of course, OctoMom could become a millionaire off this plan--if she doesn't do a porno for it first.
If you count only adults age 18 or older (about 75% of the population) they would get about $3450/person.
Come see Tim's Comedy World blog for more fun at
http://timscomedyworld.blogspot.com
PS: According to Bill Maher on tonight's show, most hybrids won't be available: They're reserved for "Michael Moore's Prius tank division" for the Socialists' impending coup in redneck states. LOL!
References:
See Wikipedia for population figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Age_structure
> This is ABSURD! Every American Could have been a
> billionaire and we would have had money left over!
> Everyone could have had a mansion and a few Hybrids
> Plus Lots of Cash! GET REAL! DUH HOW STUPID!
--
Have a comment? Join the conversation on ecology, community and politics at:
http://2bestworld.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
2/9/08
|
|
(295 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Apr 4, 2009 12:07 AM
|
$789 billion is not nearly enough. But also, it should not be borne by low and medium income taxpayers. We need the break.
Budget solutions: Lets raise the tax bracket to 50% or higher for anyone earning over $5 million or so.
Tax corporate executives--anyone making over $100K/year--but not the corporations themselves, because they'll just pass it onto us in higher costs.
One thing that many (especially conservatives) seem to ignore is that corporations have enjoyed far too much freedom to earn at far too great a cost to the poor, the ecology and other areas of our earth.
I've got a stimulus plan--probe deep in their corporate back "pockets" for the extra cash they've vacuumed up by cheating ordinary workers out of a decent salary and raping the environment.
Corporations never pay their fair share of cleanup costs for their misadventures on the environment either. We and our descendants will, though.
I mean, what are the costs that ExxonMobil are NOT paying when they "earn" their $44B each year? The ecological costs that some taxpaying grandchild of ours will be paying 50 and more years down the road to clean up their ecological turds??
Some of these costs can't be repaid. Not the millions of species destroyed , current and future--nor deaths due to climate weather changes, flooding, natural disasters that are beginning to ensue due to global warming and its consequences.
--
Have a comment? Join the conversation on ecology, community and politics at:
http://2bestworld.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Posts:
71
Registered:
3/1/08
|
|
(294 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Apr 3, 2009 10:55 PM
|
|
This is ABSURD! Every American Could have been a billionaire and we would have had money left over! Everyone could have had a mansion and a few Hybrids Plus Lots of Cash! GET REAL! DUH HOW STUPID!
|
|
|
Posts:
21
Registered:
10/18/08
|
|
(293 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 27, 2009 11:09 PM
|
|
What I'm wondering are we trying to keep dinosaurs like our auto industry going when maybe there is a new world order we should be keeping our focus on.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,028
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(292 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 27, 2009 8:16 PM
|
> No, not nearly enough. If we left Iraq (AND
> Afghanistan) ASAP, we could apply THAT $1.4 TRILLION
> to the USA, PLUS the almost 800 billion. THAT would
> get the USA back on it's feet, fund Social Security,
> pay the National Debt, and let us buy back property
> from the Arabs and Chinese!!
Pay the national debt? Don't make me laugh... Together, it would cover about half of what W added to it.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
Registered:
3/27/09
|
|
(291 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 27, 2009 12:53 PM
|
|
No, not nearly enough. If we left Iraq (AND Afghanistan) ASAP, we could apply THAT $1.4 TRILLION to the USA, PLUS the almost 800 billion. THAT would get the USA back on it's feet, fund Social Security, pay the National Debt, and let us buy back property from the Arabs and Chinese!!
|
|
|
Posts:
3,028
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(290 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 23, 2009 7:11 PM
|
> No its not enough but its a start. We have to erace
> the past 4 decades of Repugnant rule in Wash DC and
> also teach the phony Democrates next election they
> too are dispensable and get a new Congress and start
> a new financial system where hard, honest work is the
> big pay-off.
>
Actually, I think it's too much... from the Government, which is to say, from the taxpayers. We're gonna be paying this bill twice and then some. The money adds to the national debt, and we'll be paying interest on that for the next generation.
The trick is to make the money come from the more successful segment of the private sector.
> A program like Carters CETA in the 70's had every
> idiot working for the state and nation at on the job
> training programs, many became permanant, also set up
> a new Bank that loans to homeowners, businesses ,
> etc, with low interest to stay in business or buy.
> Once the people are making money they spend it and
> d so on........................
CETA had a lot of problems, as I remember... and I am old enough to remember. Many entities began abusing it, by firing their existing workers and hiring new ones under CETA, which meant CETA paid for them, but no new employment was actually created there, but the employer got the government to take over large parts of the payroll.
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
3/23/09
|
|
(289 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 23, 2009 2:28 PM
|
No its not enough but its a start. We have to erace the past 4 decades of Repugnant rule in Wash DC and also teach the phony Democrates next election they too are dispensable and get a new Congress and start a new financial system where hard, honest work is the big pay-off.
A program like Carters CETA in the 70's had every idiot working for the state and nation at on the job training programs, many became permanant, also set up a new Bank that loans to homeowners, businesses , etc, with low interest to stay in business or buy. Once the people are making money they spend it and so on........................
--
Edited by kyle4nuusa at 03/23/2009 11:29 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
5
Registered:
3/23/09
|
|
(288 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 23, 2009 2:14 PM
|
FACT: Bushwackers Tax Bill of 2000 expected the rich to trinkle down their wealth,
IT DIDN'T WORK, NOR HAS WORKED SINCE 1776
So why does Wash DC expect the Wall St Bail out to work or any of the Bank & Credit Bail outs!
WE NEED A NEW ENTIRE CONGRESS.....Obama is doing his part and thank the Spirits he got elected!
I have a suggestion: write your Congress people at Congress.org or others to stop giving out our money and grow a set and redo the entire banking system even if it takes creating a temorary Federal Bank,Loan and Credit Company to help the PEOPLE , not the wealthy.
THIS ISN'T SOCIALIZUM ITS SURVIVAL !
--
Edited by kyle4nuusa at 03/23/2009 11:17 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
3,028
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(287 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 11:59 PM
|
> We agree on this: The Fed is a powerful entity that
> goes unchecked too often and at the very least needs
> to be audited.
> And sure the banks are to blame largely for their own
> carlessness. My point is that they would be less
> likely to engage in such foolish lending if they
> weren't certain of a safety net by: the FED, FDIC,
> Treasury, and Taxpayers ---Now I'm not justifying
> the banks taking such risks, but I'm sure if
> people could use drugs without worrying about the
> effects on their bodies or overdose, why would we be
> surprise when everyone's high?
For instance zero down
> payment, interest-only, payment-skipping options,
> mortgages for more than 100% of the value of the
> home, negative amortization, and other "creative
> options".
But the Fed didn't create any of this... all this stuff was dreamed up by the banks, in the course of responding to free market forces. Many states, I believe, at one time had laws in place to make much of this stuff illegal for banks to offer. A lot of states now forbid neg am mortgages.
These mortages make sense both to the
> borrower and the lender under the assumption that the
> price of the home itself can only go up. Now why
> would they assume that?
>
Changes in the value of the home don't factor into the loan after it's signed, or at least, they shouldn't. The loan should be dependent only on the financed balance and the interest rate.
> Don said:
> "You fail to acknowledge that this is one very big
> problem with allowing "free market forces" to have
> carte blanche. Things like this will happen. It
> results from those free market forces as much as it
> results from government intervention. Both cause it,
> and both work to correct it. But government tries to
> cushion it, which slows down the process. You're
> saying they shouldn't, let the market forces work.
> The difference is akin to a fire. You don't really
> need a fire department. Eventually, it will burn
> itself out. It will eventually run out of combustible
> fuel, and I know the firefighters are going to cause
> even more damage with the water they use to fight the
> fire. But I think I'd rather have a functional fire
> department working to contain the blaze."
>
> Government does work to cushion it they've always
> tried to "cushion" a free market's recession and
> history shows government only prolongs it and
> therefore makes it worse... Like in the fire example,
> the government thinks its pouring water but its
> actually pouring kerosene and catching other houses
> on fire.
Prolonging it doesn't necessarily make it worse. Which sounds worse to you: a recession that's very deep, (unemployment doubling, GDP contracts by 1-2% for 4 quarters) but only lasts one year, or one that's been prolonged by government action, but made quite shallow in the process, (unemployment up by only 1% due to various public works, GDP down by no more than 0.25-0.5% per quarter, due to stimulus payments) but it lasts 3 years? Which do you think would be easier to live with? Kind of like the difference between a lumbering, wide turn and a skidding turn.
I think most people would weather the long shallow recession a lot better.
They're not understanding the connection b/n
> their kerosene and the fires' growth so they pour
> more b/c its politically unacceptable to not be seen
> doing something.
Not kerosene. Water. In my book, the mess was caused by the banks. The reason interest rates were dropped so low was stimulate the economy and cure the recession (the one Bush et al wouldn't acknowledge we were in.) But the only rates the banks dropped in response, were mortgages. That only helps in housing. It should have been targeted to lower credit card rates, so that all sectors of the economy would have got some of the benefit. The banks didn't do that, and the Fed didn't make them.
> The point with the gold standard stuff is that it's
> much harder to debase the currency and that you won't
> hear too many politicians advocating the gold
> standard for presicely that reason.
It does become harder to devalue the currency. This does not help exports.
|
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
3/13/09
|
|
(286 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 10:07 PM
|
We agree on this: The Fed is a powerful entity that goes unchecked too often and at the very least needs to be audited.
And sure the banks are to blame largely for their own carlessness. My point is that they would be less likely to engage in such foolish lending if they weren't certain of a safety net by: the FED, FDIC, Treasury, and Taxpayers ---Now I'm not justifying the banks taking such risks, but I'm sure if people could use drugs without worrying about the effects on their bodies or overdose, why would we be surprise when everyone's high? For instance zero down payment, interest-only, payment-skipping options, mortgages for more than 100% of the value of the home, negative amortization, and other "creative options". These mortages make sense both to the borrower and the lender under the assumption that the price of the home itself can only go up. Now why would they assume that?
Don said:
"You fail to acknowledge that this is one very big problem with allowing "free market forces" to have carte blanche. Things like this will happen. It results from those free market forces as much as it results from government intervention. Both cause it, and both work to correct it. But government tries to cushion it, which slows down the process. You're saying they shouldn't, let the market forces work. The difference is akin to a fire. You don't really need a fire department. Eventually, it will burn itself out. It will eventually run out of combustible fuel, and I know the firefighters are going to cause even more damage with the water they use to fight the fire. But I think I'd rather have a functional fire department working to contain the blaze."
Government does work to cushion it they've always tried to "cushion" a free market's recession and history shows government only prolongs it and therefore makes it worse... Like in the fire example, the government thinks its pouring water but its actually pouring kerosene and catching other houses on fire. They're not understanding the connection b/n their kerosene and the fires' growth so they pour more b/c its politically unacceptable to not be seen doing something. Mean while the market demands the houses that were built bad be burned down so that the good things can be salvaged and something better built instead. It may hurt a bit so government tries to "cushion" it and end up spreading the "fire."
The point with the gold standard stuff is that it's much harder to debase the currency and that you won't hear too many politicians advocating the gold standard for presicely that reason.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,028
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(285 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 9:04 PM
|
> > >
> > "Laissez-faire" is the term given for a
> government
> > "hands-off" policy that allows private entities
> to do
> > as they please. If the "central bank" is in
> fact,
> > privately owned and acts 100% autonomously...
> yes,
> > it does epitomize it.
>
> The Fed is a Government created institution that has
> its hands on, rather all-over, the markets through
> its actions influencing markets arbitrarily, or at
> president's or congress' request. Plus the Federal
> Reserve Act of 1913 was a special interest
> legislation masquerading as a public-spirited measure
> (more on this below)...
>
The Fed may have been government created, but it isn't government-owned or -controlled, by any means. And you're almost right, they convene at government request, but they do anything they choose, including nothing at all. Pretty much the way the President can convene a special session of Congress, but they can all sit there and play Bingo, if they want.
>
> > >
> > The Fed is owned by the banks. In fact, in
> that
> > capacity, technically, the Fed is part of the
> free
> > market more than it's part of the government.
>
> The Fed is not owned by banks, however bankers
> themselves drafted the Federal Reserve Act in a
> private meeting in Jerkyll Island, Georgia in 1910.
> Their intent was to entrench special privileges for
> one particular industry (themselves) at the expense
> of the rest of society
>
The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are owned by their member banks. They each have a 9-member board of directors, none of whom are chosen by any member of the Government. The President and Senate only appoint the board of governors.
> > You mean like we were on prior to 1873? We went
> off
> > the silver standard, which through silver
> producers
> > into a tizzy. Then Gould and Fisk tried to
> corner
> > the gold market.. (that's also an example of the
> free
> > market at work, right?) Grant acted to stop
> them..
> > (maybe you think he should have let them succeed
> in
> > cornering the gold market, that would have
> reflected
> > the true state of things, yes?) And the result
> was
> > the Panic of 1873.. 30 years before the Fed
> > existed... followed by what is called, the
> Long
> > Depression, during which a quarter of the
> nation's
> > railroads went bankrupt. It was complicated by
> other
> > factors, certainly, notably the equine flu,
> which
> > paralyzed commerce.
>
> Your basic points against the gold standard are a.)
> There isn't enough gold or silver to facilitate all
> the transactions of a modern economy and b.) The
> supply of gold can't keep up with the growth in
> business activity.
> A.)Yes there is. Since supply of money is optimal
> above a certain threshold, the existing amount of
> Gold or Silver, combined with later additional
> quantities that might be mined can facilitate all
> transactions. ( With gold being used for large
> transactions and silver for smaller ones. The
> important thing is that gov't doesn't attempt to
> establish a fixed ratio b/n the two metals b/c that
> leads to the inevitable overvalue of one and the
> undervalue of the other, dring one out of
> circulation.)
But you overlook some things: 1) The mines that produce the metals are privately owned. Do you want to go back to forbidding individuals to own bullion? 2) The reliance on such a standard inevitably leads to some person or consortium attempting to corner the market in that metal. This has happened a number of times, always failing, always requiring the government to step in. And that was before there were petrodollar states, or others like China, who could actually afford to do it; there must be enough gold to back the transactions, and also for industrial, commercial and other non-financial use.
> In an economy that uses money, goods are exchanged
> for goods, and the exchanges are simply denominated
> in money-- gold, silver, whatever. If there is
> relatively little precious metals to go around,
> prices will be high. So will wages and
> incomes.-----In the extremely unlikely event that
> there will suddenly be only 7 atoms of silver left on
> earth, the rest having been whisked away by aliens,
> the market will shift to copper or some other metal
> or money----- This is shown when the AM. standard of
> living increased in the 19th century: a relatively
> constant money supply combined with an ever
> increasing supply of other goods yeided lower prices,
> so people could acquire more of the things they
> wanted for less money.
And what about those free market forces? When prices fall, demand may increase, but supply has little incentive to meet it. Fewer goods are produced, fewer services performed... it just isn't worth anyone's while, not until prices rise a bit. But in the meantime, people are being laid off. Of course, that was then. Now, the producers would simply look for cheaper sources of labor. Like China, Vietnam, Saipan...
> B.)This is a variant of the previous objection. Why
> should it need to, and why would that be desirable?
> It is to misconcieve the nature and purpose of money
> to think its supply needs to expand in order to allow
> more transactions to take place.-Its not the end
> of the world if prices fall and the value of money
> rises-
>
Because we live in a nation where wealth doesn't circulate well at all, it never has. People equate any attempt to try to improve its circulation with promoting socialism. Wealth in America tends to be concentrated in relatively few hands. As it stands, the top 20% own about 90% of the wealth in the country, and their share of it has grown larger year by year for at least the last 30 years. The middle class shrinks, as a very small number join the ranks of the wealthy, and others are forced down to the lower levels by adverse events such as serious illness, investments gone sour... or the loss of a job, which is usually engineered by one of the wealthy, either to maintain their standard of wealth, or to enhance it.
>
> > But we had the Fed during the prior years, and
> this
> > crap didn't happen. Just because your car has
> > airbags doesn't mean you should treat the
> streets
> > like a bumper-car ride and go crashing into
> things.
> > You still damage your car.
>
> This reminds of Bush when he said " wall street was
> drunk"; so was banks and everyone else. He failed to
> admit who gave them the alcohol.
>
It's not that they were drunk... they were doing the financial equivalent of "smoking in bed..." Putting a flame source around a lot of combustible material, and then falling asleep.
And your statement is like blaming a fire caused by a chef who left a hot stove unattended and went to sleep, on the one who sold that the chef the stove.
Regardless of who gave them the alcohol, getting drunk like a bunch of stupid spring breakers was their own bad decision. They're not blaming the Fed, they're saying they didn't know it was stupid. I happen to agree with Bush on this. You fail to acknowledge that this is one very big problem with allowing "free market forces" to have carte blanche. Things like this will happen. It results from those free market forces as much as it results from government intervention. Both cause it, and both work to correct it. But government tries to cushion it, which slows down the process. You're saying they shouldn't, let the market forces work. The difference is akin to a fire. You don't really need a fire department. Eventually, it will burn itself out. It will eventually run out of combustible fuel, and I know the firefighters are going to cause even more damage with the water they use to fight the fire. But I think I'd rather have a functional fire department working to contain the blaze.
>
> Trying to pin this crisis on solely greed and
> stupiditity is like blaming plane crashes on gravity.
No, it's like blaming it on poor aircraft maintenance, when many of the parts and cockpit instruments were known to be salvaged from junkyards. It's like blaming the Titanic sinking on the captain's decision to try to break speed records passing through a region known to contain icebergs, at night.
> Poeple already made their bad choices now we have 2
> options: continually bailout business, which prolongs
> this uncomfortable period and turns this serious
> recession into a depression or we allow the free
> market to work, that is, allow businesses to fail so
> that someone with more sense can pick up the pieces
But you're looking only at the academic nature of the problem! Here's a newsflash for you... as though it all takes place in a history book... or a novel. It's a real world, though, and there are people out there! People who are hurting, sick, hungry, desperate, and getting more so while they wait for the market forces to work out the correction... which may or may not help them.
> let these banks fail so that more responsible banks
> can grow and learn from this mess, let the automakers
> fail-its not like Am. won't have anymore cars we have
> too many cars we need to sell cars abroad.
>
I agree, many of the banks, along with AIG, should have been allowed to declare Chapter XI. Even forced to declare it, and put into receivership. Their good assets would be protected, their toxic assets would have been sold for a fraction of their book value... which was actually all they were worth in the first place. It likely would have given a lot of the mortgage holders a chance to knock the book value of their mortgage back to its actual value, but without the property itself going into foreclosure.
> >
> > And the Fed wasn't stopping that from
> happening.
> > What happened was that the free market went
> through
> > h a period of mass hysteria, which also happens
> > periodically.
> >
>
> Yeah, because the FED caused it Once again the free
> market wouldn't have interest rates down to 1% b/c
> there was pretty low savings if not negative.
>
The free market didn't need to do that to achieve the same result. The free market created negative amortization arrangements which were more complicated than 1% mortgages, and actually worse. With the 1% mortgage, at least the borrower was paying off the mortgage for those first few years, and with the low interest rate, had the chance to pay off more of the principal. The buyers didn't have to take the huge mortgage, either, could have just taken one the same size as they would have if he had been paying the more normal range of 6%. But negative amortizations mean that the rate is normal, but the buyers are paying less than accruing interest... and after a few years, they owe more than they did when they started... and then the rate can be increased!
> > FNMA and FMAC along with the pro-ownership tax
> code
> > were around for a long time without a problem.
> It
> > wasn't them.
>
> After a bank offers a home loan to a consumer, it can
> sell that loan to Fannie or Freddie and from that
> moment on the loan is no longer on the books of the
> originating bank; Mae and Mac are in charge of them
> getting montly payments. The they bundle these
> mortgages into mortgages backed securites bearing the
> risk that the homeowner could default.
Yes. But the originating lender is supposed to use due diligence, and make sure there's only a minimal likelihood of default, and that if there is, the property has enough equity to cover the loan. The loan originators stopped doing that. They blamed it on the CRA, but the CRA didn't say they didn't have to do that anymore, and certainly didn't forbid them from asking about or verifying income, didn't force them to lend at initially low adjustable rates amounts the borrower would not be able to sustain after the rates started ramping upwards.
> Meanwhile the originating bank having divested itself
> of this mortgage, now has the funds now has the funds
> to go back int the mortgage market and lend again and
> the trend builds, making it easier to buy homes.
And if Fanny and Freddie weren't doing this, some other private entity would. A secondary market would have been created by the free market forces.
This
> artificial diversion of resources into mortgage
> lending inflates home prices. It is artificial b/c of
> this secondary mortgage market fueled largely by the
> special privileges Mae and Mac have been granted by
> government.
>
It only inflates home prices because the buyers allow it to. If they refused to pay the higher prices, the sellers would have to either lower the price, or not sell. Having been a home seller more than once, I know this to be true.
> >
> > The CRA was at fault, only in that its inclusion
> into
> > the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act during House-Senate
> > conferencing brought enough Democrats on board
> to
> > make it veto-proof. Then, Clinton would have
> vetoed
> > it, and the Glass-Steagall protections would
> have
> > remained in place. At least until Bush took
> office.
>
> According to University of Texas's Stan Liebowitz,
> one thing a scan of housing literature from 1990 til
> 2006 will not yield is any suggestion that "perhaps
> these weaker lending standards that every government
> agency involved with housing tried to advance, that
> Congress tried to advance, that the presidency tried
> to advance that the GSE's tried to advance--and the
> with which the penitent banks initially went along
> and eventually went along and eventually supported
> with enthusiam--might lead to high default,
> particularly if housing prices should stop rising.
>
It wasn't the rise in housing prices that caused the defaults. It was the rise in mortgage rates, combined with the loss of jobs. If you buy a house for $400K and you have a mortgage at 1%, you're paying $4K per year, or about $325/month, in interest. If you can afford that, it's no problem. If the home value falls by half... down to $100K... you're still bound by that mortgage, paying the $325/mo. The decrease in the value doesn't factor into what you have to pay, which is based upon the principal you financed at the time you signed the papers. The price can fall to $10K... which happened to many in La after Katrina hit, they were left with a "slab mortgage" because all that was left of the house was a slab, and a lot barely above water. But the borrower still has to pay on the original amount. Which isn't a serious problem if it's still affordable. It's like car payments. The car after 2 years is worth only a fraction of its original price. Your payments stay the same. This is not a problem. The problem is when that 1% rate rises to 4% and 5%, and the $4000 interest/yr becomes $16000 or $20000.
> >
> > And just because credit is cheap doesn't mean
> you
> > should borrow more than you need to, or pay more
> than
> > something is worth.
>
> Once again this reminds of Bush when he said " wall
> street was drunk". So was banks, and so was everyone
> else; He fails to admit who gave them the alcohol.
> Could it be the easy credit politicians called
> for???
>
I dealt with this earlier. Wall Street left the cooking pots on the stove unattended, and it caught fire, and the house nearly burned down. There's a lot of fire damage, and a lot of water damage from putting out the fire. But the one who sold them the stove is not at fault.
> > As for the artificial stimulus to
> speculation...
> > speculation is mostly based on
> artificiality
> > y (that's what distinguishes it from
> > investment), and rarely needs any more
> > stimulus than the profit motive.
>
> The cartel of (SEC-created) ratings agencies deserve
> all the blame they are getting along with the Federal
> Reserve's interventions into the economy that distort
> economic indicators and make it harder for people,
> rating agencies included, to percieve the true state
> of the economy.
But the banks deserve a lot more blame than they're getting, and so do the speculators who drove the markets to a frenzy.
|
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
3/13/09
|
|
(284 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 4:15 PM
|
> Isn't Peter Schiff an Alex Jones/infowars guy?
>
nope, but alex has interviewed peter a couple of times
|
|
|
Posts:
10,145
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(283 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 3:23 PM
|
Isn't Peter Schiff an Alex Jones/infowars guy?
--
STEELER NATION
|
|
|
Posts:
34
Registered:
3/13/09
|
|
(282 of 296)
Re: Is It Enough? The $789 billion Stimulus Package
Mar 18, 2009 2:51 PM
|
> The question that SHOULD have been posed is "Who is
> knowledgable about the intricacies of the ecomomy,
> the effects of various interventions, and can offer
> effective solutions?" The next logical question
> should be "Were those people adequately heard?"
> Lastly, if not: "WHY NOT?!?."
>
> We need to ensure that people charged with decision
> making power are getting accurate information,
> interpreting it correctly, and devising effective
> strategies to improve our long term economic
> prospects.
>
Amen.... watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&eurl=http://www.peter-schiff.com/&feature=player_embedded
the anwser to those questions
|
|
|
|
|
