Stimulus Plan

[Rbt]

The problem,

it seems to me, is that even the "small" things have far reaching and often unintended consequences. What sounds

good on face will often bite you in the face once implemented and funded. I think it was Reagan who said something

like "the closest you'll get to eternity in this life is a federal program". And when it does not work, or more

likely does damage, you just can't step on it hard enough to kill it.

Well, the thing is of

course that no matter which party it is, there are going to be "programs" put in place that will live for eternity.

And we are left with an infinite number of diametrically opposed (philosophically) programs warring with each other

while we the taxpayers huddle in the trenches while dodging the the bullets flying between sides that we had to pay

for in the first place... all the while getting nowhere. Except deeper in sh*t.

No I'm not a fan of

politics.... or politicians. But I'm not going to let them screw up my life any more than necessary. Just work

around them and stay out of their sight.

[a.k.a.]

Capitalist economies require the

constant circulation of money to function successfully. Money buys commodities, which create profits, which creates

capital, which creates jobs, which creates incomes, which creates markets.
When the circulation of money slows

down — when billions of dollars in so-called "assets" turn out to be nothing more than the promise of

hyper-inflated returns on loans that will never be payed back - things start grinding to a halt. Investment is

reduced, jobs are lost, markets contract, consumer spending goes down, commodities remain unsold, the rate of profit

declines, and capital is in short supply.
To bring a capitalist economy out of recession you have to somehow

increase the circulation of money in the system. There's a finite number of ways to do this: 1) Increase consumer

spending. 2)Increase private investments. 3) Increase exports. 4) Increase public spending.
Right now, the

American working classes are too strapped to spend us out of a recession. The capitalist classes are not seeing

enough returns to invest us out of a recession. And the rest of the world doesn't want to buy us out of a

recession.
I disagree with many details of Obama's Stimulus Plan, but the basic strategy (Public Spending) is

the only option this country has left.
I think many of his critics understand this, but they seem to be

playing up the obvious risks in order to secure their own political fortunes.

[belgareth]

As a short term fix, that's a

fine idea but you are not dealing with the mindset that got us into this situation in the first place or the mental

state that creates a recession. Short term thinking has been our downfall from day one, every time we apply a short

term fix it makes matters worse in the long term. Adding trillions of dollars to current and future debt is not a

long term solution.

Recession is as much or more a mental exercise than a monetary one. You have to first

understand money. Money is a concept, nothing more. Have you ever seen a billion dollars? Nobody else has either. It

is an entry in a ledger or stored as electrons on magnetic media. The money you might have in the bank is also an

electronic entry someplace that tells the bank you have loaned them the money so they can use it to loan other

people and make a profit on the margin. The only reason money has value is because we collectively agree it has

value. Were we trading in seashells it would be no different and if it became widely known that seashells were

becoming scarce they would be held and hoarded too instead of used to buy the non-necessary items we want. Even

purchases of quasi necessarry items would be deferred whenever possible. That would result in a reduction in the

shells available to the hunters so they would cut down on the amount of meat they brought home so it would not sit

in their caves and stink instead of being traded.

Right now the capitalist classes are not seeing enough

spending to justify employment of all their workers. That, of course, frightens everybody who then begins to hoard

and spend less. The hard knock we got from energy prices didn't help the mindset. Then the hard knock from the

banks made matters worse. People are justifyably frightened and as a result they are not buying the things they

would otherwise buy. That results in a drastic reduction in goods orders that results in further layoffs.



Certainly, there are millions of people out of work right now. and the rest are scared spitless that they may be

next. None of them see the possibility of future employment in a recession and the news people are not helping by

highlighting the negatives. There is still money to be had despite a likely adjustment in earnings and cost of

living. The real issue is creating the confidence to get people to start using that money instead of acting in fear

and hoarding it.

Here too, for different reasons, I support parts of the stimulus plan but the overall package

is wrong. The bailouts should not have happened the way they did. Helping the individuals who were in trouble

through no fault of their own is fine, helping corporations or individuals who made reckless decisions is simply a

bad precedence and will result in the need for more bailouts. We've already seen it coming from the automotive

industry.

The stimulus should be aimed not at large institutions but at the people. Jobs, major tax cuts to

create jobs and promises of secure futures are what we need right now, not hand outs to people who knowingly screwed

up and are still living like kings. The housing market bust is not over and until those who could not afford the

homes they bought are settled in some long term manner, it will not be over. If they could not afford the home they

bought last year, they probably cannot afford them next year either. Bailing them out will do no more than prolong

the agony. On the other hand, increasing 'worthwhile employment' and decreasng the tax burden will help to resolve

the problem in the long term. I define worthwhile employment as a job that is reasonably secure and pays well enough

that a person can afford to pay their bills and keep food on the table in a healthy environment. Yes, it does leave

a lot to be defined but that cannot be helped. I do not include the ability to have two brand new cars, vacations in

Bermuda or other luxury items.

For all the above reasons I actually support the earmarks more than the overall

spending plan. Most of the earmarks I have seen would create work, which would generate spending and increase

confidence.

The US has long been declining in it's competitiveness on the world market. We are becoming a

nation of service industries, that are less well paid, while many of our high value jobs are going overseas. Our

edication system is focusing on being test-worthy rather than being educated and productive. That is a trend we need

to reverse but it cannot be done with handouts. It can only be accomplished by changing our mindset while leaning

down the wasteful, inefficient and non-productive organizations. That is a large part of what needs to happen now

and would be happening were it not for the bailouts.

We agree on many things but I think we disagree on the

reasons or the exact actions needed to resolve the crises.

[a.k.a.]

The housing

market bust is not over and until those who could not afford the homes they bought are settled in some long term

manner, it will not be over. If they could not afford the home they bought last year, they probably cannot afford

them next year either. Bailing them out will do no more than prolong the agony.

This part of the

Obama's strategy is what worries me the most. I do think that home-buyers need some relief, but I wonder how it

will work out in the long run. You agree to reduce the value of your home in return for a renegotiated loan. Sure

this may help you keep your home. But doesn't it also encourage those same predatory lenders that created the

real-estate bubble in the first place? They can wait for real estate prices to sink even lower, buy up a bunch of

property at bargain prices, encourage buyers to take out government secured loans, and then sell this debt in the

financial markets. Who cares if the homeowners can't pay, if the government backs up their debt?
On the other

hand I support more public spending in Healthcare. First of all, this is where the job market is still relatively

healthy. I believe in building up our strengths in order to overcome to our weaknesses. Second of all, public

spending in healthcare indirectly supports other industries by reducing insurance costs. Thirdly, pharmaceuticals

are one export which could conceivably become competitive with a little government support.
My biggest

disagreement with Obama's critics is over tax cuts. Tax cuts are a sort of band-aid solution for reduced rates of

profit. They don't create confidence. Rather, they create incentives, or at least opportunities, to invest in

other countries.

[belgareth]

It depends on hte homebuyer we

are talking about. Those that knowingly bought houses far beyond their means are never going to be help-able. In a

normal market they would lose the houses too or would never have been allowed to obtain a loan. I do agree with your

concern about predatory lenders as well. So long as the government is involved in bailing people out and their are

predators out there it is going to happen.

It depends on what you mean by greater healthcare spending. The

health of that job market is not material to the topic, really. And I surely do not want our government involved in

providing or monitoring healthcare. I look at the rest of the world's 'universal healthcare' and shudder!

I

look at taxes like an engineer, they are parasitic on the economic engine. Currently, taxes consume about half of

the energy the economic engine produces. A reduction in taxes would put more money into the economy but the

reduction would have to be substatial. You can use the argument that other places have higher taxes but it begs the

question of how their economies would be doing with half the tax rate.

[belgareth]

More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence

problem
Sunday, March 15th 2009,


Roberts/Bloomberg

President Barack Obama
Not long ago, after a string of especially

bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and

asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?"



The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama

supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts.



Yes, it's early, but

an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It's a

nagging doubt about the competency of the White House.



It was during George W. Bush's second term that the I-word -

incompetence - became a routine broadside against him. The Democratic frenzy of Bush-bashing had not spent itself

when a larger critique emerged, one not confined by partisan boundaries.

The charge of incompetence covered the mismanagement of

Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the economic meltdown. By the time Bush left, the charge tipped the

scales to where most of America, including many who had been supporters or just sympathetic, viewed him as a failed

President.

The tag of

incompetence is powerful precisely because it is a nondenominational rebuke, even when it yields a partisan result.

It became the strongest argument against the GOP hammerlock on Washington and, over two elections, gave Democrats

their turn at total control.

But already feelings of doubt are rising again. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid were never held in high regard, so doubts about their motives and abilities are not surprising.



What matters more is

the growing concern about Obama and his team. The longest campaign in presidential history is being followed by a

very short honeymoon.

Polls show that most people like Obama, but they increasingly don't like his policies. The vast spending

hikes and plans for more are provoking the most concern, with 82% telling a Gallup survey they are worried about

the deficit and 69% worried about the rapid growth of government under Obama. Most expect their own taxes will go up

as a result, despite the President's promises to the contrary.



None other than Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter, has called the

administration's message on the economy "muddled." Even China says it is worried about its investments in American

Treasury bonds. Ouch.

Much of the blame falls on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose appalling tax problems softened the ground

under him before he took office. After his initial fumbling presentations, he became a butt of jokes on "Saturday

Night Live," not a sustainable image for the point man in a recession. And still the market waits for his answer to

the banks' toxic assets.

It's also notable that four people lined up for top jobs under Geithner have withdrawn, leaving one British

official to complain that there is nobody to talk to at the Treasury Department. Perhaps it was a bid to combat the

Geithner blues that led Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, to make an unusual appearance Friday in which

he defended the spending plans everyone is so worried about.



Yet the doubts aren't all about Geithner, and they were reinforced by

the bizarre nomination and withdrawal of Chas Freeman as a top intelligence official. It's hard to know which

explanation is worse: that the White House didn't know of Freeman's intemperate criticism of Israel and his praise

of China's massacre at Tiananmen Square, or that it didn't care. Good riddance to him. But what of those who

picked him?

Which

brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through

daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience

is showing.

His

promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember

the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.

The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a

speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks

in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then

issued one himself.

And

in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor

am I interested in expanding government's role."



No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.



mgoodwin@nydailynews.com

[DrSmellThis]

I'm not worried about general

competence right now, particularly after the last eight years where absolute incompetence was the least of the

problems. Those who most loved Bush and Cheney called them "incompetent".

But it's just too early to "call

incompetence", except on ideological grounds (for example, "all expansion of government is bad, therefore Obama is

incompetent"). But ideology fails to tell you what to do in an emergency, among its other short and narrow sighted

failings.

To me it's not a partisan or ideology thing. It's not even about a deeper philosophy of government,

or what to do in normal times, or for the long term.

The only relevant evaluation is whether the package works

to do what it was designed to in the short term time frame it was designed to address. I get impatient with all the

criticisms that presuppose spending like this as a long term plan. Those criticisms are disingenuous and overly

cynical.

A lot of the economists involved in these recovery efforts were conservatives, like Paul Volker, who has

forgotten more about practical economics than most economists will ever know; not that I have always agreed with

him. If McCain was in power, we would still be doing something along these lines, that would have many more

similarities than differences, and we would have lots of criticisms of it. Or if you picked a random person to be

president, and he or she consulted with all the best economists and experts, the same result would happen.

As AKA

pointed out, a stimulus package is the classic solution to this type of economic problem, in terms of what to do in

the immediate short term.

Of course you are a moron if that is your whole plan. But generally speaking, the

stimulus does not ignore the bigger picture, because the bigger picture tells you that your short term plans
would

differ from your longer term plans, and that you begin with a stimulus. It that corrrect? We'll see. I hope so, to

say the least.

Having said that to avoid the partisan insanity; I have the same worries everyone does. I'm sure

Obama and his advisors have those same worries as well! I believe he is genuinely trying to figure it out and do the

best thing, and that his best shot at a solution is going to have lots of flaws.

I don't believe in throwing

good money after bad, I don't believe in pork and earmarks that are not totally focused toward the recovery.

I

think it's bad form to put anything in that bill that is not a direct and powerful effort at economic

recovery.

For example, I don't believe we should put healthcare record keeping provisions in there because that

deserves its own debate. We need a program that fits America and Americans, not Canadians or French; and that

requires a lot of tweaking.

I do favor an increased public role in healthcare, and I favor healthcare for all

Americans, despite all the shouts of "socialist!" I think it is a good and necessary investment in our country. The

healthcare crisis is dragging us all down. No amount of Darwinism is going to lift us out of this mess. Untreated

sick people are a black hole for national and world resources. Getting everybody health care in a reliable manner

will be good for the economy in the long term, and in the biggest picture.

My bias there is to use a conservative

principle from the Regan administration, federalism. You farm out the administrative part as much to the local level

as possible, while having appropriate standards for uniformity, etc. that is the cheapest way, and the most

efficient, all other things being equal. Plus, when you have the locals involved, people tend to care more about the

details, if that makes sense. I am a big privacy advocate, and have to maintain standards of privacy and

confidentiality in my own field. I object to any violation of those rights in the strongest terms. You do have to

collect personal information to provide healthcare, but there is lots and lots of room to protect people within

that. Medical ethicists and privacy advocates should take part in designing the information gathering and record

keeping.

But returning to the stimulus, measures that create jobs through work; where the work itself address the

recovery; are a no brainer for what to include. If you fix a bridge it puts people to work and helps the economy of

the people who depend on that bridge. If you put people to work helping veterans recover from PTSD, it helps the

ecomomy and puts people to work, both the helpers and the helpees (and yes it is relevant, AKA/Bel, that you are

investing in an area where the field and jobs are relatively more stable, precisely because you are not throwing

good money after bad.) What you want is to maximize the "power" of each measure in that way, looking for measures

that multi-task and/or bring bang for the buck. My quarrels with Obama's plan relate back to this issue, which is

the "power" of each provision. You have to look at the big picture to discern the power of a provision.

I'm

frankly torn about how much to bail out the auto industry, even though everything about my small home town in Ohio,

as well, as our family business has been to a huge degree dependent on the auto industry. I am still personally at

risk along with the auto industry. If anyone should be interested in helping carmakers, it's me and my family. But

frankly, the auto companies were terribly mismanaged and foolishly misread the demands of the marketplace. I would

have been glad to buy domestic, and even would have preferred to do so; but bought a foreign car because it was

better in every relevant category. Maybe you let one or two of them fail and start over? Again, this so called

"conservative view" has nothing to do with my politics as far as I can tell. I just don't like to throw good money

after bad.

Regarding that op-ed piece from NYDN, neither Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, nor anyone else could

devise a recovery plan that didn't seem "muddled".

Frankly, I worry more about those who pretend to have

simple, clear answers, particularly ones based on ideology. Those people were bound to come out of the woodwork with

all guns blaring the first chance they got, shouting from the highest rooftops that an emergency spending bill

equals communism and socialism. They don't even wait for McCain's presidential "corpse" to chill.

Obama

consulted all the experts from all sides of the ideological spectrum before acting, and their opinions came back --

you guessed it -- muddled. Given that, I'm not going to expect anything close to perfect clarity.

But to me that

op-ed piece is a bit disingenuous. When Obama gives exactly the answer someone who likes fiscal conservatism would

hope for, to clarify the difference between long and short term, this journalist opines that Obama therefore is

"confused." What a waste of time.

[idesign]

Capitalist

economies require the constant circulation of money to function successfully.

The capitalist classes are not

seeing enough returns to invest us out of a recession. And the rest of the world doesn't want to buy us out of a

recession.

I disagree with many details of Obama's Stimulus Plan, but the basic strategy (Public Spending)

is the only option this country has left.
I think many of his critics understand this, but they seem to be

playing up the obvious risks in order to secure their own political fortunes.

I agree a.k.a., liquidity

is the major problem in the markets now, all of them, housing, equity, credit etc. I do not agree that "public

spending" is the answer. I doubt that as much as 10% of these "stimulus" funds will reach the private sector where

its needed most. And its common experience that the inefficiencies of gov't will not allow anything at all to

filter through inside of 12-18 months. By then the turnaround would be well on its way if Washington would just

keep their hands off.

If you want to stimulate a market, any market, in the short term, you have to put cash in

the hands of investors and spenders immediately. Historically the only way to do that is by taking less of their

cash in the form of taxes and burdensome regulation. Not that some regulation is not needed.

I don't think its

a matter of "risk to secure political fortune". Yes, money follows politics in this country, and vice versa. That

does not mean that disastrous economic policies will work any better now than they have in the past. See Weimar

Germany, Carter America and Yeltsin Russia. Japan tried this in the 90s, spending their way out of recession. Its

now know as Japan's "lost decade", and in the process they quadrupled their national

debt.

Recession is as much or more a mental exercise than a monetary one.

The

real issue is creating the confidence to get people to start using that money instead of acting in fear and hoarding

it.

The stimulus should be aimed not at large institutions but at the people.

Bel has hit the other

half of the nail on the head. Confidence is half the game, and its why the stock market has tanked 2000+ points

since Obama's been elected. Every time he or one of his people goes before a microphone it drops another hundred

point or so. His Treasury Sec has most of his senior staff unfilled. Now, in a time of economic crisis, one would

think that the Treas. Dept. would have some kind of priority. Not so, unfortunately. He has a host of "shadow

advisors" who may nod wisely at his policies, but as Obama's policies unfold, nobody wants to work for this guy (or

they can't get vetted).

In the end, I don't think the markets have any confidence in this President. He's

turning out to be not as smart as he's been billed. He's following a boilerplate set of policies (not only

economic, and that's not lost on many of us) which require only a like minded Congress. There's no crisis

there.

[idesign]

While breathing deeply and

taking a deep draught of Chamomile tea for composure, I'm pondering the separation of economics and ideology. I'm

also pondering how committed our Pres. is to this ideal. To quote Borak... "NOT".

I honestly and completely

agree with what a lot of you guys say, aka, Doc, Bel, Rbt et al. And I heartily engage in and enjoy fruitful

debate, though I may be guilty of "flaming" at times. Its my fault.

Having said that, and after reading verbatim

some of the actual bills he's signed, and seeing what he's actually doing (forget what he says, its

meaningless), I don't for an instant believe Obama gives a flying f**k whether the economy turns around this year

or in the year 2525.

This is NOT a political opinion.


Pardon my language, but I'm over this guy getting a

pass for using this situation to shove his agenda through (irrespective of ideology) while billing it as some kind

of stimulus.

Darn, the Chamomille ran out... oops

[belgareth]

Please forgive me for the light

side-trak but this article struck me as hilarious! What a grand suggestion!

Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves



By NIGEL DUARA, Associated Press Writer Nigel Duara, Associated Press

Writer AP –

IOWA

CITY, Iowa – Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward

accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing

themselves.

The

Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday.

They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in

suggesting suicide.

"I

suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing

that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the

American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go

commit suicide.

"And in

the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."

Grassley spokesman Casey Mills said the senator isn't

calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and

bonuses do so irresponsibly.

"Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their

companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to

commit suicide but he doesn't want U.S. executives to do that."



The senator's remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the

disclosure that AIG intends to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout

money. President Barack Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" on Monday and pledged to

try to block payment of the bonuses.

[belgareth]

Rather disappointing but it

highlights the facts regarding stem cell research despite what the press tells us.

Embryonic Stem Cells: 5 Misconceptions
Christopher

Wanjek
Livescience's Bad Medicine Columnist


livescience.com



Last week President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for

embryonic stem cell research and asked the National Institutes of Health to come up with a funding game plan within

120 days. Yet while the field of stem cell research holds great promise, hype and misconceptions cloud the picture.

Here are a five such misconceptions.


1. George W. Bush killed research on embryonic stem

cells.




Wrong. Bush actually was the first president to allow federal funding.

Bill Clinton had chickened out. A very brief history follows.




In 1974, Congress

banned federal funding on fetal tissue research and established the Ethics Advisory Board to study the nascent field

of in vitro fertilization. In 1980 Ronald Reagan killed the Board, which was friendly to embryonic research,

resulting in a de facto moratorium on funding. Congress tried to override the moratorium in 1992, but George H.W.

Bush vetoed it. Bill Clinton lifted the moratorium in 1993 but reversed his decision in 1994 after public outcry. In

1995, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, banning federal funding on any research that destroys human

embryos.




In 2001 Bush enabled limited funding on embryonic stem cell lines

already derived from discarded embryos; the life or death decision already had been made, he said. He thought more

than 60 lines existed, but within months scientists realized that only about 20 were viable, not enough to do

substantial research.




2. Bush spurred development of alternative sources of embryonic stem

cells.




Sure, in the same way his disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq

spurred the development of treatment for massive head trauma, or the way his economic policies have encouraged all

of us to do more with less. One doesn't advance a scientific field by handicapping researchers.






Regardless, the biggest advance in recent years has come from Japan by

a researcher not affected by U.S. research funding rules. U.S. federal funding could have led to even more advances

of alternative sources, because funding stem cell research in general can have a synergetic effect across the

various research specialties.


3. Embryonic stem cells are no longer needed.






Wrong. In 2007, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan announced

a breakthrough in which adult skin cells could be coaxed back into an embryonic state and thus regain the ability to

branch into any kind of human cell, such as heart, pancreas or spinal cord nerve cell. While a major advance, the

work itself is in an embryonic state, years from practical application.


The work

on these so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells complements embryonic stem cell research; it doesn't

replace it. The iPS cells have a greater tendency to become cancerous. Work on "real" embryonic stem cells is

needed, at a minimum, to understand what iPS cells lack. Many view Yamanaka's technique as brilliant yet worry that

his four-gene manipulation of adult cells might be too simplistic.




Research on iPS cells

is particularly exciting because it opens the possibility of using one's own cells - say, from skin - to produce

pancreas cells to cure diabetes, whereas embryonic stem cells would introduce DNA from a stranger.






4. Cures are around the corner.


Wrong.

Stem cell research is dominated by hype. Remember gene therapy, the insertion of genes into human cells to cure all

types of diseases? Nearly two decades after the first gene therapy procedure, the technique remains highly

experimental and problematic. Stem cell research faces a similar future.


5.

Obama's executive order means "all systems go."




Unlikely. The new rule

eliminates red tape, for now researchers can study any established embryonic stem cell line. Previously, stem cell

researchers receiving private and public funding needed to keep detailed records of spending, down to which

microscope is used for which kind of stem cell. That's history.




But the Dickey-Wicker

Amendment (see No. 1 above) is the law of the land, meaning federally funded researchers cannot create new embryonic

stem cells lines. They can work only on those new lines created with private funding, which aren't that plentiful.

Also, some scientists worry that crucial private funding will dry up with the poor economy and false reassurances

that federal funding is in place.


The furor over stem cells focuses on the definition of

human life, which many believe begins when sperm meets eggs. Yet inevitably lines will be blurred in coming years

when babies are born with the DNA of two sperms or ova transplanted into an egg. Just as humans evolved from

non-humans - with no precise generation in which a non-human gave birth to a human - we may come to understand that

all of nature is a continuum.

[a.k.a.]

Confidence is

half the game, and its why the stock market has tanked 2000+ points since Obama's been elected.

In conservative markets (such as those you find in text-books) the asset value of stocks is determined by the

expected flow of dividends. In speculative markets (such as the one you find in Wall Street) asset value is

determined by the expected volume of buyers.
In periods of high liquidity, you find large volumes of

money chasing a relatively small number of assets. This inflates the value of the stocks and creates a so-called

"bubble economy".

The most recent economic bubble was created when fractional reserve banks threw huge

volumes of money into the stock market through easy credit and low interest loans. When it turned out that many of

these banks couldn't back up even 8% of the credit they had extended with real assets, the bubble burst. Hundreds

of billions of dollars in value simply disappeared, and now the market is contracting.

Once more, I am sure

most of Obama's critics understand this. But it's always easier to find scapegoats than to take responsibility for

a dire situation.

[Rbt]

Some real quick thoughts before the

boss catches me goofing off...

1) the economy ie stock market etc seems to me to be more emotionally driven than

"scientifically" driven or fact driven. No matter how good an economic plan you may have, it won't work if no one

supports it "in their gut" so to speak. Somewhat true with any plan come to think of it... Think of the "rallying of

the troops" before a battle.

2) one of my big worries is that, to borrow a Christian reference, I think a lot of

people see Obama as the Second Coming. He is a charasmatic leader, but there are too many putting too much stock in

his magic wand. And those followers are about as much to "blame" for elevating him to that level as he is accepting

it/allowing it to happen. Yes, I can see the point of boosting spirits and all that. Positive thinking, light at the

end of the tunnel and all that... but what is going ot happen when things don't work. Already I see grumblings

about how things haven't changed much, and the guy has only been in office for a few months (and as pointed out,

still doesn't have a frull staff yet). The "rebound" effect could make things a lot worse than they are now.

3)

I can't put all the blame on any one President or party. I still think they have more similarities than

differences. One is pretty much the same as any other when you look at the overall picture. Yes there are

differences, but it's like one wears a red tie and the other a blue tie. Big whoop. Many of the American people

share this blame as well. That have to have the 52" TV with $200 a month cable and the McMansion home. All bought on

credit.


Okay, end short rant. Need to get back to work before *I* join the ranks of the

unemployed...

[DrSmellThis]

idesign, if what you're

saying is that Obama is pushing too much political agenda through the stimulus bill, I agree totally. That seems

like a good objective criticism that is possible to respond to. He already has a voter mandate to enact his campaign

promises and change things from the last administration, so there is no reason to do it through the back door. That

is a missed opportunity for real change, and it somehow cheapens the importance of a stimulus.

I also share your

concerns about how much stimulus money will end up where it is supposed to, and not just end up as bonuses or

whatever. If it's only 10%, obviously, that would be trouble. This problem is so obvious, that I hope Obama's team

is concerned as well.

However, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he doesn't care about the economic

recovery in the slightest. I know the Rush Limbaughs of the world love to say stuff like that about non-republicans.

But he is enacting a stimulus package, after all, and fixing the economy has been by far the dominant use of his

time since he got in. The first thing he did after the election was to put together a bipartisan economic team.

(which was nothing if not an attempt at separating ideology from economics, by the way. But if the fact that no

republican voted for the stimulus package, despite it being close to the republican version, means Obama is being

the partisan ideologue, then OK.)

If you just wanted to argue he is pushing it through too fast, then, again, I

might agree with you, even though I can see why a new president in this situation would want to hurry up with it. We

are in an acute crisis.

Sounds like you are very frustrated with him, and I can understand that, since neither of

our guys won. But it seems that if, even for a minute, he does anything other than enact extreme,

permanent tax cuts in the highest brackets, which is the preferred right wing "solution" for every economic problem

(yet they recently called the lower and middle class tax cuts "welfare"), that media ideologues are going to happily

rain down every possible negative judgement of character upon him. It's the same old rhetoric, like calling people

who don't favor the war -- who disagree -- "unpatriotic".

[idesign]

In

conservative markets (such as those you find in text-books) the asset value of stocks is determined by the expected

flow of dividends. In speculative markets (such as the one you find in Wall Street) asset value is determined by the

expected volume of buyers.
In periods of high liquidity, you find large volumes of money chasing a relatively

small number of assets. This inflates the value of the stocks and creates a so-called "bubble economy".

The

most recent economic bubble was created when fractional reserve banks threw huge volumes of money into the stock

market through easy credit and low interest loans. When it turned out that many of these banks couldn't back up

even 8% of the credit they had extended with real assets, the bubble burst. Hundreds of billions of dollars in value

simply disappeared, and now the market is contracting.

Once more, I am sure most of Obama's critics

understand this. But it's always easier to find scapegoats than to take responsibility for a dire

situation.

Sure, that's why the bubble burst - well before Obama was elected - but does not explain the

continuing decline in every segment since 11/2/08. Recovery requires confidence, and that requires a belief in

future prosperity. Nobody has it at this point. Obama and his policies are having a major impact on this.

[DrSmellThis]

Sure,

that's why the bubble burst - well before Obama was elected - but does not explain the continuing decline in every

segment since 11/2/08. Recovery requires confidence, and that requires a belief in future prosperity. Nobody has

it at this point. Obama and his policies are having a major impact on this.

Actually confidence is now up

slightly in the last month since the inauguration, and since the horrible job loss figures were released at the

beginning of the year caused a pessimistic

February:

http://www.reuters.com/article/econo...BCSNAP20090317

http://abcnews.<br /> <br /> go.co...7100754&page=1

In addition to that measure the stock market is up slightly

in recent weeks.

This Gallup poll shows consumer confidence in fact rose after Obama's

election:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111829/Co...-Election.aspx



In between, confidence fell in response to some very real economic

news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/bu...er=rss&emc=rss