http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/business/12stress.html?_r=2

This should be very interesting. There is a real possibility that each of these 18 institutions are insolvent under FASB 157. And isn't it great, they are going to bail these guys out with our money, and they do this shit

Quote :

"Details are scant. But exams for 18 or so of the biggest banks are set to begin immediately, and the first results could arrive within weeks. They are not expected to be made public for every institution."

#1 It's our fucking money, I'd like to know if it's going to a failed bank
#2 In lieu of that, what the hell kind of message does it send when you say bank X is well capitalized but make no statement about bank Y?


I voted for Obama, but the longer he lets Geithner run shit in a way that reminds me of the way the Bush admin ran things, the more I regret my vote.

2/12/2009 4:57:48 PM

Excuse me, but that's why elect them, because they know a FUCK-TON more than you do.

2/12/2009 5:08:59 PM

^ Ya i love all the arm-chair politicians who seem to be experts in

1.) Economics
2.) Climatology
3.) Foreign Policy
4.) Military Operations
5.) Social Policy

etc

I prefer to judge a politician by his actions and the resulting effects to complement my own biased views regarding different policies. Unfortunatly most people on both sides (more blantant on the right) rely solely on what Bill O'Reilly says we should do. Disregarding the outcome if positive of any policy executed with which disagree with.

2/12/2009 5:22:35 PM

Quote :

"the more I regret my vote."

come on. On November 4th, we had 2 choices. Even given what's going on now, can you say you would rather have old-man McCain calling the shots now with guys like Phil Gramm whispering over his shoulder?

2/12/2009 5:25:35 PM

^^aimorris was being sarcastic. But since you ran with it, from my perspective you are one of the worst armchair experts on this board.


[Edited on February 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM. Reason : 2]

2/12/2009 5:26:38 PM

Well, had McCain won the current simulus would only be $700 Billion, much less than Obama's $800 Billion. So, yes, I suspect McCain might have been a better president from that perspective.

2/12/2009 5:28:07 PM

Quote :

"old-man McCain"

Yes, because at least Obama looks fresh and coooooollll when he talks about spending billions of dollars

2/12/2009 5:32:47 PM

Quote :

"come on. On November 4th, we had 2 choices. Even given what's going on now, can you say you would rather have old-man McCain calling the shots now with guys like Phil Gramm whispering over his shoulder?"

I said this a month or so ago that I was having buyers remorse, then I remembered what the alternative was. But honestly, if this "change" means more of the same shadowy government moves then fuck em. We really don't know how this would play out with McCain, but I eschewed my fiscal conservatism for a fresh face and approach and hiding the results of this test to save the asses of the people that fucked up in the first place is no different than the games that were played under Bush.

2/12/2009 5:35:09 PM

Lone, and how the hell do you know the results of said spending? Where's your economic crystal ball? Why can't you admit that you have no idea?

2/12/2009 5:38:46 PM

Quote :

"Well, had McCain won the current simulus would only be $700 Billion, much less than Obama's $800 Billion. So, yes, I suspect McCain might have been a better president from that perspective."

hhhhhahahaha
yeah right
700B is soooo much better than 800B, and I bet you guys would all be on board if that was the number! And comparing the two, all we need to look at is the size of the stimulus!

2/12/2009 5:40:04 PM

McCain, like the other fiscal conservatives, has said many times that tax cuts should be the backbone of the stimulus rather than spending and expanded services to the poor. It's not so much about the size but rather the direction of the stimulus. Keynesian vs Friedmanian.

2/12/2009 6:18:58 PM

and we've seen how right friedman has been recently.

of course keynesian theory had its shortcomings 30 years ago.

2/12/2009 6:23:05 PM

Quote :

"McCain, like the other fiscal conservatives"

ha, give me a break.

It's comical - to qualify as a "fiscal conservative" in this country, all you have to do is say "tax cut" every 30 seconds.

2/12/2009 6:31:25 PM

^^ Friedman never advocated the kind of irresponsible spending we've seen over the last 8 years. He also spoke out passionately against the moral hazard of GSE's like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that contributed greatly to this mess.

^McCain has his faults, but he has been a tireless opponent of pork barrel spending. The stimulus package is chock full of spending projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

2/12/2009 6:41:53 PM

No matter how bad Obama screws up minus making islam the national religion of the US, letting terrorist destry our nation, or taking all my money through 90% tax policy in a Socialist Republic of the United State; I will just be like at least McPalin did not win.

2/12/2009 6:42:17 PM

I voted for Ron Paul...

2/12/2009 8:07:34 PM

Quote :

"spending projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy"

does. not. compute.

2/12/2009 8:09:57 PM

Quote :

"and how the hell do you know the results of said spending? Where's your economic crystal ball? Why can't you admit that you have no idea?"

Obama and his cronies have no crystal ball either. Difference is ..L-Snark didn't just vote in a $800 billion crap-shoot spending bill.

2/12/2009 9:09:12 PM

you're right - that is the difference.
They were voted into office to do what they think is best, and you guys are sitting around bitching about everything

2/12/2009 9:41:38 PM

Quote :

"does. not. compute."

Perhaps you'd care to regale us then to why Japan's "Lost Decade" had nothing to do with zombie banks, near-zero interest rates, and bloated public-sector spending as an attempt to spend their way out of the problem.

This should be interesting.

2/12/2009 11:15:29 PM

i could say what other people have written and you could reply with what yet other people had written. and in the end we'd be no further along than when we started.

2/12/2009 11:21:21 PM

So let's just pretend contradictory evidence doesn't exist and save face.

If you're unwilling to confront the evidence, why don't you spare us all the first step and just not bother to say anything in the first place?

2/12/2009 11:43:01 PM

Quote :

"does. not. compute."

What doesn't compute? I am referring specifically to the many billions allocated that do not relate to infrastructure spending or tax cuts. Maybe I should have made that more clear.

I am no libertarian ideologue. I understand the merits of a targeted spending plan as a stimulus to the economy. Highway, bridge and waterworks projects are investments in the country's infrastructure, and the jobs created will help spur the construction industry back to life. A secondary benefit is that those people earning a paycheck will spend their money, creating secondary jobs. The problem is that hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill are allocated to pet projects, new beauracracies, climate research, federal employee child care, food stamp increases, mitigation projects, etc that are, once again, "spending projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy".

From what I have read, approximately 40% of the $789 billion in this package goes towards tax cuts and tax credits. Another $90 billion or so goes to infrastructure projects. Great. Those both target the economy. But then you have $54 billion "to encourage energy production from renewable resources". $24 billion for "Health Information Technology". Over $100 billion for schools. $10 billion for science facilities and instrumentation. The list goes on. It doesn't seem responsible to allocate all that money to those kinds of projects when we are facing a trillion dollar deficit and more pressing concerns on the economy.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : 2]

2/13/2009 11:17:10 AM

I think people need to seriously stop foaming at every bit of news and let things play out a bit.

2/13/2009 11:22:50 AM

Quote :

"infrastructure spending or tax cuts. "

those aren't the only forms of stimulus. pretty much any spending that creates jobs (see almost all spending) or creates consumer spending (see food stamps) is going to be stimulative.

Quote :

"food stamp increases"

according to http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm food stamps are the best stimulus to the economy that we know. providing something like $1.70 of economic activity per $1 allocated.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 1:12:43 PM

Good link.

I realize that most forms of government spending will be stimulative, since it puts people to work and puts money into the system. And upon further consideration, it makes sense that increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits would have the most immediate impact since they will be spent right away. But I still think that more of the stimulus should be focused on sound investments like infrastructure, tax cuts and aid to states, as opposed to democrat pet projects like climate research, new health care beauracracies and education spending.

2/13/2009 1:35:42 PM

i agree with you about infrastructure and state aid (to a degree but there are good arguments to not rewarding states who are/were hasty with their spending). but tax cuts are not a very stimulative measure. especially when compared with many other forms of stimulus (like infrastructure or food stamps)

2/13/2009 1:44:58 PM

For what it's worth, I don't approve of the president's job anymore.

Maybe I did for 2 to 3 days. Still beat Bush.

2/13/2009 1:47:33 PM

Rome was not built in a day. Give Obama some time to get things reorganized.

2/13/2009 2:04:26 PM

Quote :

"Excuse me, but that's why elect them, because they know a FUCK-TON more than you do."

you would think this, however we have been proved over and over again to not do this at all. people still vote for the 'cutest' or some other equally subjective basis like 'race' or 'sex'

2/13/2009 3:23:23 PM

LOL

2/13/2009 4:28:45 PM

I think what Prawn Star was getting at was that tax cuts "subsidize" work and productivity. As do infrastructure spending and research, though possibly a little less than tax cuts. On the other hand, many of these other spending measures either subsidize less productive work than would otherwise be available, or, in some cases, non-work, zero productivity.

2/13/2009 6:16:50 PM

do you have any clue what you're even talking about?

2/13/2009 6:18:51 PM

do you?

2/13/2009 6:22:56 PM

i'll ask it this way:

do you have any support that tax cuts somehow "subsidize work and productivity" more efficiently than infrastructure spending?

or i can just give you josh marshall (which i just happened to read since you replied):

Quote :

"It pains me to say this. But Sen. John Cornyn doesn't seem to be too bright. Cornyn was just on MSNBC explaining that spending in a severe economic downturn doesn't make sense and should be replaced by tax cuts since individuals can spend money "more efficiently" than government. I guess he doesn't get that the whole point of a stimulus bill is that in a severe recession individuals -- acting on rationale individual economic motives -- aren't spending. And only government, as a policy decision, can spend at a high rate notwithstanding the state of the economy. He also claimed a 3x multiplier for tax cuts, which I don't think anyone believes. But I'm more interested in his point about the relative efficiency of private vs. public sector spending since it seemed to show that he doesn't understand what a recession, let alone a severe recession (which has qualitatively different dynamics), even is. I know there are contrary theories of how economies work. But not grappling with the high level of risk in the economy that makes businesses and people unwilling to spend ... not sure you can enter the conversation without getting that. "

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 6:26:32 PM

The increased food stamps subsidize the "Tims"/"Miller High Life" industries

2/13/2009 6:27:34 PM

Hence the qualifier, "possibly." There are some infrastructure projects that are the most efficient use of resources. There are some that are a waste of resources.

2/13/2009 6:32:20 PM

name some.

2/13/2009 6:35:33 PM

you seriously don't believe there are real world examples of both? seriously? get right out of town.

2/13/2009 6:37:22 PM

i'm saying this statement:

Quote :

"As do infrastructure spending and research, though possibly a little less than tax cuts."

is grossly inaccurate.

are there infrastructure projects that are wastes of money and of no long-term use? certainly there are. but those infrastructure projects still spur more economic productivity in the short term than tax cuts. and that's the problem with which we're dealing: a major recession. improved infrastructure is just a bonus.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 6:41:38 PM

the stuff being said here about infrastructure projects is correct.

I don't know why I would spend a stimulus check when I know that I'm going to have to pay it back with tax dollars eventually. Just b/c the government finds irresponsible spending okay doesn't mean I do.

2/13/2009 7:03:56 PM

^^All things equal, a billion dollars spent on infrastructure projects will provide more bang for the buck than a billion dollar tax rebate when talking about immediate effect on the economy. Long term, lower taxes are essential to a sustained recovery by fostering a favorable business climate.

Yes, we are in a very ugly situation and it calls for some stimulus spending to keep the economy from tanking further. However, I believe that said spending should be a 1-time deal, rather than forming new bureacracies and expanding entitlement programs. We cannot spend forever; I would like to see the focus of the stimulus be infrastructure and tax cuts because they are temporary measures. When our government expands, it rarely retracts again.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 7:15 PM. Reason : 2]

2/13/2009 7:14:13 PM

^now we're back to the first tangent.

^^so more than likely you'll give your money to the bank...

^^^wastes of money that produce products of no long term use do not spur economic productivity. they do create jobs, at the expense of productivity. or would you have all the nations unemployed given jobs to dig and refill holes?

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 7:19 PM. Reason : bad spell]

2/13/2009 7:18:32 PM

^^overall i agree and somewhat understand your point. BUT if you think tax cuts are a "temporary" solution in this political climate. well let's just say i wouldn't want to be the senator who votes to let those tax cuts expire.

2/14/2009 10:54:44 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090506/bs_nm/us_bankofamerica

boa needs 34 bil more

5/6/2009 12:24:31 AM

Quote :

"rather have old-man McCain calling the shots now with guys like Phil Gramm whispering over his shoulder?"

As long as he covers Greg Graham, and doesn't let him drive by, while the rest of his administration lets him catch the ball outside the three second lane and drive all the way in there without one guy challenging him, it wouldn't be so bad.

[Edited on May 6, 2009 at 6:40 AM. Reason : oh i just noticed i was part of this thread earlier ]

5/6/2009 6:39:53 AM

No, what we needed was Obama in the white house and a Republican majority in the Congress. Afterall, things didn't really go to shit until the democrats took control of Congress in 2006.

5/6/2009 10:21:53 AM

Quote :

"Afterall, things didn't really go to shit until the democrats took control of Congress in 2006."

Right, Congress was VERY ACTIVE in Bush's final years, passing all kinds of dangerously short-sighted legislation with no threat of veto.

5/6/2009 11:14:23 AM

Quote :

"No, what we needed was Obama in the white house and a Republican majority in the Congress. Afterall, things didn't really go to shit until the democrats took control of Congress in 2006."

You know, normally I respect what you have to say and all, but... are you fucking kidding me?

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? A massive new farm subsidy bill? A grossly ill-advised misadventure in Iraq? And let's not pretend the Republicans had nothing to do with the first round of bailouts, with a Republican president leading the charge.

I mean, really? Biggest growth in government spending since LBJ, and you want to say the problems started in 2006?

5/6/2009 12:50:11 PM

Quote :

"I mean, really? Biggest growth in government spending since LBJ"

This sentence is no where near true anymore. Obama has smashed all of Bush's records. As I understand it, Obama has increased spending more in four months than Bush did in his eight years. And other than Iraq and the prescription drug benefit, every thing you mention was similarly done by Obama. The bailouts occured after the democrats took control of congress in 2006 and Obama has actually increased farm subsidies over Bush's own absurd inflation. Yes, Bush lead the charge, but Obama is turning out to be Bush on steroids, just without the roid rage.

As such, I stand by my call for a return to 90's normalcy: A democrat as president to moderate our foreign policy (although Clinton invaded a lot more countries, they were all manageable) and a Republican Congress to moderate our fiscal policy. The inverse leads to disaster, just as one party rule led to Iraq under republicans and a multi-trillion dollar deficit under the democrats.

5/11/2009 11:01:15 AM