"the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"

[Charlie Page]

The crisis is well researched and the scholars are busy as this is written. Thus: I'm not asking you to do anything hard.

If what you ask for is written and known to you, then why don't you present it for us? Being part of a segment of the population which is able to connect the dots to form an opinion, I'd like to hear what the scholarlies have come up with. Please present their findings.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Charlie, I will present soon some sources of information for those who are willing to invest the time to better inform themselves. I put a lot of stock in people making the behavioral investment in learning. Everybody has to decide for themselves whether such an effort is worthwhile.

For me, reading someone's uninformed opinion begs the question: what would said person opine if they were well informed?

Ask yourself what you would be willing to do to learn about a new subject matter that is--by definition--very complex. Where would you go?

Of course before one can go anywhere seeking information, one has to formulate some sort of crude or better set of questions which, in a sense, admits what is known and what is unknown and needs to be known.

You could do a lot worse than begin to scan the terminology of mortgage finance at Wikipedia. Because certified experts did coursework in finance, there's a huge academic resource available in the form of undergrad and grad level course syllabi. You have google scholar, and, at your world class local library you have at your finger tips enormous research databases.

It should be obvious, also, what are likely to be not very fruitful sources of information and, additionally, what materials CANNOT suffice as a foundation for even a modest 'lay' understanding.

My opinion is: it's a challenge for civic consciousness to become disenchanted with mere opinions, especially your own.

[Bill Call]

Japan's economy is decling at a 10% annual rate.

Waaayyy Smaller Link

Japan tried to jump start its economy with $6 trillion dollars in infrastructure projects. The country was left deeply in debt.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2222.cfm

.... was due to irresponsible spending in the first place. And I don't believe that you can spend your way out of debt.

I see the truth of it.

Obama's plan is to borrow trillions of dollars and give it individuals and governments so that individuals can by more stuff and local governments can continue business as usual.

Where will the money come from? The treasury department has announced that it will by its own debt. What does that mean? The intend to print money.

There is nothing in Obama's proposal that will encourage economic growth. There is a great deal in his rhetoric that will retard economic growth.

Part of the economic malaise is caused by fear. The fear of consumers to spend, the fear of investors to invest and the fear business to hire. Obama's rhetoric feeds that fear.

His goal is not economic prosperity. His goal is the destruction of the capitalist economy and the empowerment of the state. His economic models are Venezuala, Zimbabwe and Cuba.

The ground has been well prepared. Look at the people who attend his rallies. They want the government to pay the mortgage, fill their gas tanks, give them a new kitchen and provide them with all the comforts of life. All Obama asks in return is obedience.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen Calhoun is probably still feverishly searching for documentation to save face in this thread. It should not take an intellectual giant like Calhoun 5 days to counter my uninformed opinion / hypothesis. As time ticks by, Calhoun is probably getting a dose of melt down reality. He is now probably realizing that he bit off more than he can chew. The typical Calhoun mantra that “I am uninformedâ€

[Dustin James]

Hard to dispute the fundamental truth (or consequence) of this statement:

Quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931–2005

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody, anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Just an observation.


.

[Dustin James]

Bullet proof....

"The problem with Socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Margaret Thatcher

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Dustin

I am starting to think I am living Groundhog Day.

We are witnessing another massive spending bill with nothing really concrete, and the mantra of "we have to do something right now."

It borders on insane.


FWIW


.

[Dustin James]

Dustin

I am starting to think I am living Groundhog Day.

We are witnessing another massive spending bill with nothing really concrete, and the mantra of "we have to do something right now."

It borders on insane.


FWIW


.

I think we do have to do something. But I agree, it should not be a drunken sailor in Las Vegas approach.

Sorry, but this money has to come from somewhere. The good intentions that helped get us here, are water under the bridge, Requiring the banks to loosen lending - by law, helped create a situation where folks were able to buy houses, but unfortunately, they could not really afford them. This was multiplied by millions of home owners who over shot with the friendly help of banks and mortgage lenders like Quicken Loans.

The stimulus needs to be focused on pure job creation AND - stopped after those jobs start to take hold. From what I can tell, the current bill has about 1/5th allocated to job creation this year. The rest is who knows what general appropriations. The Dem majority is betting the farm against a huge house loss and Rep majority rule in 2010 if they blow this. I can't see spending our way to prosperity working any better now than it did for Carter.

Just IMHO.

.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I think we do have to do something. But I agree, it should not be a drunken sailor in Las Vegas approach.

Sorry, but this money has to come from somewhere. The good intentions that helped get us here, are water under the bridge, Requiring the banks to loosen lending - by law, helped create a situation where folks were able to buy houses, but unfortunately, they could not really afford them. This was multiplied by millions of home owners who over shot with the friendly help of banks and mortgage lenders like Quicken Loans.

The stimulus needs to be focused on pure job creation AND - stopped after those jobs start to take hold. From what I can tell, the current bill has about 1/5th allocated to job creation this year. The rest is who knows what general appropriations. The Dem majority is betting the farm against a huge house loss and Rep majority rule in 2010 if they blow this. I can't see spending our way to prosperity working any better now than it did for Carter.

Just IMHO.

.

Dustin

I would even go farther. One of the reasons we are in this mess, is the leakage of jobs and companies overseas. I would ask the government to first look at stopping those programs, and loopholes, and then start to create jobs.

Last night i was watching a conversation about this, and one line that killed me was, "At least at first, Americans, not illegal Americans will get the jobs, but you can bet that slowly, others will filter in." This made me think, this is insane.

Had America been able to retain it economic base, we would not be having the problems we have now. But look at the number of companies that took their manufacturing overseas, laying off millions of workers.

I also wonder how are we going to know that some of the money will not trickle overseas to help pay workforces overseas? It would only make sense to make sure this does not happen, and maybe to start only with companies and projects that can promise the money stays in America.

What is really disheartening is throwing good money after bad, and thinking it will work. Reminds me that as a kid, I would lose a baseball in the bushes, and in a desperate attempt to find it, I would throw in another ball after it. It usually resulted in loosing two baseballs. At best I could find both, but I never ever found three!

FWIW


.

[Tim Liston]

Remember one thing. There's no "stimulus" without "tim".....

[ryan costa]

40 percent of the "stimulus" should go to rebuilding rail, locomotives, and rail cars. this will provide jobs for downsized autoworkers and engineers.
This will help us reduce our addiction to foreign fuel. forget highspeed rail: that's 2 or 3 generations ahead of us. It didn't have to be, but we had too much fun in the 1950s and onward.

gasoline taxes should be raised to pay for the war/occupation of Iraq.

reduce social security taxes. extend the lower rate to all income levels. stop robbing social security revenue to partially mask reaganomics deficits.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen Calhoun wrote (Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:04 pm): Charlie, I will present soon some sources of information for those who are willing to invest the time to better inform themselves. I put a lot of stock in people making the behavioral investment in learning. Everybody has to decide for themselves whether such an effort is worthwhile.

Main Entry: soon
Pronunciation: \ˈsün, especially New England ˈsu̇n\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English soone, from Old English sōna; akin to Old High German sān immediately
Date: before 12th century
1 a obsolete : at once : immediately b : without undue time lapse : before long <soon after sunrise>
2 : in a prompt manner : speedily <as soon as possible> <the sooner the better> <no sooner said than done>
3 archaic : before the usual time
4 : in agreement with one's choice or preference : willingly <I'd just as soon walk as drive>

Is it soup yet! or better yet where's the beef?

[Stephen Eisel]

Sincere question, did the stimulus work?

[Stephen Eisel]

From 1-08-09.. Karl Rove article.. interesting

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html

Mythmaking is in full swing as the Bush administration prepares to leave town. Among the more prominent is the assertion that the housing meltdown resulted from unbridled capitalism under a president opposed to all regulation.

Like most myths, this is entertaining but fictional. In reality, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis, and Mr. Bush wanted to rein them in before things got out of hand.

Rather than a failure of capitalism, the housing meltdown shows what's likely to happen when government grants special privileges to favored private entities that facilitate bad actors and lousy practices.

Fannie and Freddie are "government-sponsored enterprises" (GSEs), chartered by Congress. As such, they had an implicit promise of taxpayer backing and could borrow money at rates well below competitors.

Because of this, the Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.

Mr. Bush wanted to limit systemic risk by raising the GSEs' capital requirements, compelling preapproval of new activities, and limiting the size of their portfolios. Why should government regulate banks, credit unions and savings and loans, but not GSEs? Mr. Bush wanted the GSEs to be treated just like their private-sector competitors.

But the GSEs fought back. They didn't want to see the Bush reforms enacted, because that would level the playing field for their competitors. Congress finally did pass the Bush reforms, but in 2008, after Fannie and Freddie collapsed.

The largely unreported story is that to fend off regulation, the GSEs engaged in a lobbying frenzy. They hired high-profile Democrats and Republicans and spent $170 million on lobbying over the past decade. They also constructed an elaborate network of state and local lobbyists to pressure members of Congress.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-stu ... ts_article



http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... htm?p=full

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.