Dee, I agree.

For everyone:

Blame is an indication of "rationalization" of a problem rather than trying to understand the root causes.

I don't know what the root causes are other that what the media tells me. It does look like greed, like the grasshopper and the ant story... All summer long, the ants toiled to save for the winter, while the grasshopper played and was unconcerned about the change in the season. Fall came, and the grasshopper partied. Then the first blow of winter's chill, the ants survived because they prepared...

At best, you can corral ALL your IRA accounts, and roll them over to the new IRA's (includes Roth's) with a 6% return "grandfathered life insurance" that minimizes the loss as "insurance", without a health check, right now it is tax free to borrow out before aging into use. ROI amounts do vary.

If you have any capital (>$2500 these days), Cramer is saying buy as many energy/gas stocks, bonds and some manufacturing, even major commodities, like sugar cane, sorghum, etc. as well as blue chips if you can afford it. I would get into Food Coop/Farmer's Market that ship what's in season to you as season's change. If you live near farms, shop Kosher/Halal meats. If you can fish, get the aquaculture fish. You ain't eating Live Maine Lobster, but, you can eat Trout...

Seriously, even my father is bartering these days. If you have a service you can barter, do it. They have a Craigslist section. Flatten your energy bill, if you haven't already, cut cells phones off, or have bundled services. Dayum buy bootlegs, start living on the underground.

And I read, somewhere, on the internet, which could be wrong, if you are facing foreclosure, stay in your house before the police show up to evict you. Ignore the notices, do what you can as long as you can. Pride is not going to feed your family, seriously!

I would not believe any of the major media markets today because they are in the business of presenting news, mostly bad and negative these days. I am not talking about HRPL news. But we can all improve on our discernment on what is right and wrong. We do not have a loss of food, water, etc. Our infrastructure long neglected can use upgrades. Job losses are due to decaying businesses and structures that supported the "grasshopper's or locust's way of life" rather than the ants' which required us to work collaboratively for some time.

KsigKid--

I wish throwing money would solve this problem, but leaving it to do nothing, will not self-correct it either. Because this problem is a "cancer" and we have to aggressively treat it if we want to survive as a country. If we fail to try our best to make a difference with this "patient" in who is in "active dying" mode, what's the point with having the United States? Maybe we will be wasting our money and owe the planets for our debt, but I personally rather try to make a difference, especially for those military service personnel who are coming back in boxes... For whatever it is that makes us American, that is what make it worth the effort for me. JMO...

I'm going to say it: while there's a great deal of truth in the idea that the blame game doesn't help much, it still seems a little rich for people to make this appeal in regard to Obama after everything under the sun that Bush was blamed for.

I've said before and I'll say it again, it's way too early in Obama's Presidency to suggest that any of his policies as President are failures.

However, at some point, it's going to be as appropriate to regard him as being as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, as it was to hold Bush responsible. I don't remember those of you posting this now ever making the same general argument when it was Bush being blamed.

ETA: personally, I think I'd be inclined to allow that some Presidents just have more than their fair share of crap happening during their terms than others. I think this is going to apply to Obama, but if the economy recovers during his Presidency, he'll largely receive the credit too.

On AGDee's point: I don't think you can just fail to take in taxes and quit providing all public services. That's just crazy talk. Is your ex-husband an anarchist?

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the people who seem to be able to afford to pay more taxes really can if they are also supposed to contribute to an economic recovery partially based on consumption. I think some of us also want some evidence that we're going to get something for the money. And no one can know that. A lot of the initial bailouts have just led to requests for more money. Others apparently involved enough red tape to hamper their effectiveness.

I agree. Once again, people have conveniently changed the rules.

I read this article today http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9...re-his-wedding and some of the comments were random as hell because people began debating whether Obama, Bush, or Clinton were to blame for the economy.

My main complaints about Bush were related to pouring our military resources into Iraq instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his trade policies and his stances on social issues (embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc). Of those, the economy is somewhat related to trade policies and the spending in Iraq (I'm not convinced we would have needed to spend quite as much in Afghanistan/Pakistan seeking out Bin Laden and his cronies as we have spent in Iraq). While I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, I'm not convinced that it needed to be the priority it became.

My ex-husband is not an anarchist but he hates paying money for anything, even stuff he tells me he'll pay half for like my daughter's varsity jacket and Spamalot tickets (which he attended with me and the kids!). He just hates paying anybody anything, unless it's golf or big screen tvs. Since he works for the steel industry, he's pretty panicked about his job right now and he was really ticked off with Bush when Bush wouldn't put tariffs on foreign steel. Then again, his once American steel company was bought by a Russian company, which is a strange thing in and of itself. As an American company, they only provided steel for Ford. As a Russian company, they are 50% auto industry and 50% commodities so the part of the stimulus package that addresses infrastructure could actually help them because steel is needed for bridge/road improvements, etc. He also rarely thinks for himself and spouts off stupid things like that. Once I point out the issues with the ideas he spouts off, he will admit that maybe it's not the best idea. He's truly a horrible debater...lol. He even wavered on abortion when my daughter asked him what would happen if she got pregnant before she finished college. In that case, it would be ok if she got an abortion, but not for anybody else or any other reason. In short, he's selfish and just wants to know "What about me?"

I hear a lot of people saying "Where is my bailout?" when they are still employed, can afford to stay in their house, etc. HELLO! You don't need one! You're ok! I do see great benefit in not having too many vacant houses in a neighborhood. There are 4 on my street right now, including the one right next door. It's being auctioned on the 16th. People have been stopping by the house and I have been going out to meet them :) I want friendly neighbors. I want real people to buy it, not some investment company who will eventually flip it. I don't like having an abandoned house next door. When I bought my house, the house on the other side was abandoned and the grass grew feet before the city would come to mow it. There were rats over there. During the blackout of 2003, there were people around it. The demand for copper is so high that break ins are happening and people are stealing the copper out of the abandoned houses. It's not good to have lots of abandoned houses. I'm ok, I can pay my mortgage (as long as I have a job, which seems pretty secure so far). I don't need a tax cut, I'm living comfortably enough.

I really think that the whole root of this problem is greed. We are a wasteful and frivolous society. We have been irresponsible with credit and with our spending. I'm not exempt from that... I was in that trap too and dug out when my mom passed away because she was a saver and a wise investor. I'm bound and determined to not get into that trap again. Yes, my living room carpet is old. Sure, I'd love to have a big screen TV and to replace the loveseat that the dog ripped up, which is covered with a blanket these days. I'm waiting until I have the cash to do those things now. In the past, I would have charged those things without a thought. Credit cards have become "emergency only" things, like if the furnace were to go this winter and they are the first priority for paying off.

Interestingly, Suze Orman, who always said "pay off the credit cards" is now saying "Pay only the minimum on your credit cards for now and save your cash". The last I heard her speak, she said that as people are paying off credit cards, their credit limits are being reduced or the accounts are being closed by the bank, leaving people without that emergency backup. She has said that all the rules are different this year and you need to make sure you have cash. A friend of mine experienced something similar. She has kept up with her bills, except for a couple months last year when she had major surgery and was late with a few credit card payments. She realized her interest rate was up to something insane like 29% and called to have them lower it because she had paid down a lot, was making more than the minimum payment and her last late payment was about 10 months ago. The response? They said "Oh, you had late payments, we have to close your account"

Ok, this ended up being another novel, sorry for that. I'm quite preoccupied with the economy. I have heard experts saying we are going to become a service economy and all manufacturing in the US will go away. I don't see how we can survive being only consumers and not providers of goods in a global economy.

Did this whole problem start when we got rid of the gold standard? I wish I had studied economics more.

I completely agree with you about the military resources issue. The amount of money that was spent was absolutely absurd. They knew it. They didn't care. What really got me was, as you said, when Saddam became the priority. To be honest, I completely disagreed with their decisions concerning him.

This is pretty far from anything related to the topic of the thread, but I occasionally fall into the "where's my bailout" line of thought. Not really sincerely, but simply because I feel like the government is creating incentives for bad or irresponsible behavior and penalties for people who, so far, have demonstrated they're more likely to pull their own weight.

AGDee, I think some of my differences with you on this point have to do with your having a fundamentally more positive view of human nature and human behavior. Most of the time, you seem to assume that people who want or need help honestly tried their best to meet their obligations but through limited fault of their own have now become unable to. That line of thought more supports the idea that it becomes the moral duty of others to try to help them, and the government's job to kind of provide guarantees of this help.

On the other hand I see some evidence that the current mess reflects a lot of behavior by people who approached things very selfishly and incautiously, who sought to get the most they could rather than what they could safely afford (or morally or ethically deserved, in the case of money managers who made a lot of money losing money for investors or CEOs who screwed their companies), government officials who were more than happy to personally profit from a failure to regulate and turned a blind eye when things were good, who all now turn to people who have been plugging away at steady jobs, living in modest houses, paying taxes, basically trying to carry their own weight, and ask for the second group to subsidize the bad outcomes because of the behavior of the people in the first group.

Oh, hell no.

To be honest, I've disagreed with 99% of what you've posted on here, and it's not that big a deal to me. I don't know who you are, and I'm not "prejudiced" against you; I just don't agree with your opinions.

Why would I be buckling under pressure from a screenname? I don't know DrPhil, and while I think she makes some good points in her posts, I really could care less what she thinks of me. I'm not lacking in self-confidence or self-worth to the point that I would allow message board posters to change my behavior, or "pressure" me.

But, in a general sense...if you're spending money that doesn't make any difference, and only postpones problems (or pushes those problems on to further generations), is it really worth it?

As most of us are not experts regarding this, what are the realistic options on a National level? We know the options on local and individual levels, seeing as though some of us know how to prepare for the future and adjust for difficult times so that really isn't the issue here.

I do not know if there has been a false sense of hope instilled in the population. There has been a lot of big talk that has resulted in an imbalance between optimism and realism. I think people are expecting longterm improvement to come too quickly (beyond Stock Market fluctuations and a few companies hiring). This is another reason why it's difficult to know when and how to assess the effectiveness of policies and programs. You can compliment what sounds like a good approach and criticize what sounds like a bad approach. Too much more than that is presumptuous.

This is part of my concern; people want the quick fix, and aren't concerned about the longterm. There are people who want stimulus money pumped into companies (whether they are banks, auto manufacturers, etc.), but then what happens next? Is a there management audit, so to speak, to find out the management issues? Do you then examine the company's business practices to make sure they're not getting back into bad habits If we pump money into saving jobs, or offering some sort of financial bridge during unemployment, what are the after-effects? Where is this money coming from, and how does it all balance out? Is it just a Band Aid, or a real solution? And, is the government really the best body to be examining "best practices" for private industry?

It's also a subject where most people can't be objective about it. You have people living in economically-depressed areas who are saying "You can't understand, because you don't have friends losing jobs." Or you have people who have lost their investments because their investment companies have been mismanaged. In those circumstances, it's impossible to take a longview.

Plus I have my own opinion that Presidents have very little impact on the ecomony anyway, either positive or negative...

I did say that I think the root of the whole problem is greed, so I'm not sure I'm saying that we're basically good and all tried to do the right thing. I see three groups of people in foreclosure. The first group don't have jobs or have had extenuating circumstances (like my neighbor who had breast cancer and then lost her husband) and therefore, can't pay their mortgage. Some of them have paid hundreds of thousands on their mortgages over the years but can't pay it now. So, even if they only owe $20K on their original $150K mortgage, they can't make the payment and the bank gets the house. The second group got into bad mortgages ... interest only or low interest to begin with, with the plan to refinance as the low interest terms of that mortgage came to an end. However, since their housing value has dropped more than 30%, they can't get a new mortgage so they are stuck paying exorbitant interest. I don't know who should "shoulder" the blame for those. I don't think people intentionally said "I'm going to buy a bigger house than I can afford". I think they thought they'd afford it, that property values would continue to rise, etc. The third group are people who have found jobs in other states, have had their homes on the market for over a year and can't sell it. The result of all this is that home values continue to drop at an alarming rate. So even if you had 20% down when you bought your home, you now owe more than it's worth. Whose responsibility was it to predict that home values would drop this much and you should have put at least 50% down on your house 5 years ago if you wanted to have 80% equity today? I don't know. I hear experts say we were in a housing bubble and it was bound to burst, but I don't know how we were supposed to know that. I guess I think some of that stuff should've been regulated.

Do I think we should be bailing out the CEOs of corporations who were making 7 or 8 figures? No. However, shit rolls downhill and it's seriously affecting the people who were paying everything and staying on top of things because they don't have jobs now. The vast majority of these companies that are failing are the middle class working folks, not the CEOs. The actions of the first group are seriously affecting the people in your second group. You think the guys who were making 8 figures are losing their homes? No. They've made more in a couple years than the rest of will make in our lifetimes. I don't see the bailouts as bailing out those individuals. I see it as bailing out society as a whole. I think that's our major difference.

I can understand your point. However, I must add that I find it rather odd that someone would disagree with 99% of someone's opinions. I can't think of anyone in real life who I disagree with on 99% of their opinions. Say what you like, but that sounds like someone who has just made it up in their mind that no matter what that person says, they are going to find some way to disagree with it.

As for the part about buckling under pressure, when you put it that way, it may sound ridiculous, but considering how cliquish this forum is, it's not that farfetched. Yet, again we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Housing: I think we all just have to live with the consequences of how our decisions pay out without expecting to be somehow delivered from them. I think the word on the housing bubble was out there before the bubble burst; most of us just ignored it and did what we wanted to do. All of us may owe more on our homes than they are worth if you bought in the last five years. There's no government fix for this really. On some level, what a lot of people seem to want is a restoration of the bubble.

The "where's my bailout" thinking comes in when you see that if you quit paying your mortgage you might get something: adjustment of the loan value, new terms, something. At some point, you feel like a sucker for just plugging away at life while people who made dumb decisions or decisions with unfortunate consequences, depending on how gracious you want to be about it, end up doing as well or better in terms of material possessions. I think it was AKAMonet who first mentioned the Grasshopper and the Ant fable.

I have a whole lot less faith that we can bail society out because human nature won't fundamentally have changed a lot with a couple of months of economic downturn, particularly if the ants have to share with the grasshoppers.

(Personally, I think I have some Grasshopper traits too, so I'm not trying to present myself as all dedicated and financially cautious, but I would expect there to be individual consequences and resolutions to my own mistakes, rather than that everyone else was obligated to pitch in.)

Then you are speaking for yourself. Stop attributing your feelings to others.

There's really nothing to agree to disagree about. Once again, your assumptions are your own. Stop confusing them with the absolute truth.

The topic of this thread is actually about perception and assumptions versus reality and how much overlap there is.

This all makes sense at the individual level. However, the government is here for a reason and platforms differ on why the government exists/what its role is. So who has the "right" to make such subjective determinations of the consequences of people's actions and where does the government step in?

This country is no stranger to social programs and safety nets. There are ways that the government determines who is eligible for these programs. We have given the government the power to make such determinations so it really shouldn't change now. America and global capitalism have always had contradictions and hypocrisies. It is extremely contradictory and hypocritical for this country to ignore the monster that it/we created and say "well many of you chose to be consumers in this consumer economy. So just live with the consequences of your actions that coincidentally helped build up the most powerful industrialized nation in this global market."

My point about bailing out society is the repercussions on the rest of us when all these houses end up abandoned. Blight is not a good thing for a neighborhood and only makes your own home value continue to decrease at an alarming rate. If my neighbor's house is auctioned off for $20,000, that completely kills my own property value. The more people who lose their houses, the worse it's going to be. It seems like a neverending downward spiral. I'm concerned about where "bottom" is. As I've said, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe a depression is inevitable.

But how do you restore or maintain property values if they were based on a bubble created by bad lending practices, as well as short-sighted self-interested behavior by buyers?

I'm worried about where the bottom is too, but I'm not sure that trying to cushion the bottom with tax money is where it's at.

I disagree. When the government has demonstrated it's unwillingness or inability to govern or regulate effectively, and depending on who you ask actually institutes programs that led to some of the problems, I think we have to decrease the government's power to make those decisions, rather than increase their role. ETA: actually, I'm all over the place on this. I really don't know. I feel mutual contradictory impulses that lenders needed more or different regulation previously, but at the same time I don't trust the government to know what regulation they need now.

And most of our view of government in the US is based on the idea that we are individuals capable of making decisions in our own welfare. The idea that most of us are simply passive witnesses to the creation of some monster is kind of odd. Purchasing a house is not a passive process really.

ETA: If we were talking about a federal package strictly to temporarily strengthen what we usually think of as safety net type programs: food stamps, housing vouchers/public housing, health services for the poor, I don't know that I'd feel as resistant to that. But what we're seeing doesn't seem to have any kind of focus.

This sounds good in theory. How does it work in practice? Whose opinions/frame of reference and what evidence will these steps be based on?

Americans are both active participants and semipassive witnesses, depending on the process. We purchase homes and accumulate wealth (and inform ourselves and vote) but don't have complete control over every outcome. For instance, the unemployed people I know had accumulated a great deal of wealth such that they could be unemployed and pay high mortgages (among other costs of life) for 1-2 years if need be. However, even they can't withstand but so much economic downturn. Still, they aren't the average Americans in terms of education, income level, or wealth building. So I wouldn't base my opinion of the economy primarily on them and people like them.

I'm a Giddens' Structuration person. That applies here in that as far as I and many are concerned, America enables individual freedoms and also constrains individual freedoms. In choosing to be responsible or irresponsible, we are recreating the structure as we know it. However, I believe that there are still some structural processes that are beyond our control. When things begin to crumble and personal and/or social safety nets are ineffective, what next?

Those who were irresponsible and lack basic life skills will not benefit too much from this approach, unless people are saying that the average American fits into this category.

It's a big topic that I feel all over the place about, as well. I definitely see both sides of the coin.

I agree.

Why do you think this plan lacks focus, even for those who have read the documentation beyond the graph breakdown on recovery.org? I have not looked at recovery.org in a while.

I think that maybe the safety nets were deemed dead ends by the powers that be. Then again, we have many Americans who are totally against any kind of social safety net (usually based on class and race stereotypes, etc.).

I don't think individuals have control over everything that happens to them certainly; I just think we have to be careful about what the the government does to "solve" problems. The government can create incentives and disincentives to shape individual behavior. I want to make sure we have carefully thought out any unintended consequences.

I'm not seeing that with current government spending.

ETA: I'd have to brush up to make a list of things that I don't think belong in it. Would you like me to do that?

Or would just suffice to say that my conception of safety nets have to do with temporary measure to carry people though especially hard times in terms of absolute necessities. And that my conception of stimulus spending would be specifically targeted spending with almost guaranteed outcomes (especially when it comes to job creation), rather than just throwing money at projects. My general impression of current spending in just getting anything that ever seem like it might be something a legislator wanted to see funded the funding required.

ETA: Looking at recovery.com, I'll immediately say that the category of broadband internet access shouldn't be there. Nor does clean water and flood control seem like it has anything to do with the economic downturn. Local school district spending is complicated. Sure the economic down turn has hurt local districts, but I don't think it's a federal issue, and I think only extremely poor districts ought to qualify for these funds, but that's not how it's shaking out in Georgia. Higher education and Pell grants don't belong here. Transforming energy systems should be funded someplace else. I can accept that in certain industries, depending on exactly where the money is being spent, it could be economically stimulating, but I think it's being done in a sloppy way which guarantees nothing. Certain aspects might even belong in homeland security.

Looking at Wikipedia, there's 50 million to the NEA to support artists, and I'm not sure about census preparation as economic recovery.

While some of these thing can be regarded as legitimate government funding, they shouldn't be sold to the public as part of the economic, fending off complete catastrophe, stimulus.

Can you think of any examples?

Some consider the stimulus plan an incentive for some and disincentive for others.

Just keep on looking for conspiracies and mob mentalities. I really don't know what to say anymore, and at the end of the day I don't care.

Good luck, and I sincerely hope you have more appetite for intelligent debate in real life.

Well, generally, I suppose I mainly think about taxes as creating incentives in certain areas on both the individual and business level. They can also create disincentives.

At the strongest level, I suppose we criminalize as our strongest disincentive. Is that what you are asking me?

What I wonder about with the stimulus bill in the areas that actually target what I'd consider to be directly related to the economic crisis it that by helping people and industries in the short term, we're rewarding what we want to see least, like mortgage non-payment or abandonment or irresponsible financial risk taking in business in the long term. OR to counteract this fear will see an new era of over-regulation that will hamper growth or home ownership.

ETA: let me add local school funding as an area in the sloppy areas of the stimulus. In metro Atlanta, several of the school systems pretty routinely conduct themselves in a financially wasteful way. What this funding teaches them is that if something really hurts their revenue stream they can expect the federal government to ride to the rescue, with apparently little accountability for the money they receive. Might it have been better instead to make them bear the cost for their foolish decision making coupled with the economic downturn? Perhaps. I feel like I should qualify this for anyone who thinks that the funding flows through to actually affect instruction for the kids by noting that isn't how it seems to go down. The systems with the highest spending per pupil often have the absolutely most crappy classroom conditions. The dysfunction in management prevents the money from getting to the classroom. The leadership of these systems could have made cuts to bring their costs under reasonable control, but now they don't have to.

And I sincerely hope one day that you learn the difference between intelligent debate and just disagreeing because of personal issues you have.

I'm going to declare that although you are merely user name, I personally dislike you. All your paranoid thoughts are true in my case.

It's not your positions on issues or the petty way you want to argue when you've been unclear or your argument is incomplete. It's a personal issue I have with your username.

So basically every point you're making can be summed up as:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j9...6553910891.jpg

LOL

FTW

I don't know how to generalize this situation. Everyone who is undergoing this loss has an individual story.

While the Zombie Banks will take all our money, some of the stim pkg money will make a difference making it worthwhile.

We cannot push things onto future generations, that is completely unethical, the problems of today must be dealt with today, regardless any one's positiion on any singular issue. "peace in our time" was deemed morally dispecable (spelling?) during this Federation's revolution, and should be treated the same way now. As difficult as we may find them, we must strive to resolve the problems of our day, and not to delegate them to the citizens of the future. To fail to do so is nothing short of generational tyranny.

That is interesting take. However, the deficit was levied higher when President Reagan took office, in response to the Iranian Hostage Crisis that President Carter was unable to solve... The first President Bush increased it due to the First Gulf War, although, the Kuwaiti's did pay us back, it still was not enough that we incurred. President Clinton spent quite a bit of taxpayer money at first, we did see our economy flourish and we were left a surplus partly based on the taxes paid...

The second President Bush gave tax-breaks for the richest 1% of the population. Then 9-11 happened, which did cost us... More than we all could imagine. It truly affected World Trade. It wasn't that the twin towers and other buildings fell in its dramatic tragedy, but the months of lost business, Wall Street probably did not re-coup as well as they thought. While Fed Chair worked his magic the cost was only a band-aid, and deflected to future generations... How far into the future is up for contention. But, we are facing past decisions and this is what we are paying for, now...

Lemme, put it like this, basically, a lot of the money is going to California, as well as other states. So many people are upside down underwater in homes they use to own, it was psychotic what was done in many parts in California. But since the economic potential of California's GDP is greater than both war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems like a wise ROI. California needs major infrastructure upgrades. SoCal has no more water. There is quite a bit of major crop farming that no one can afford to lose, name all fruits, wine grapes, etc., so desalinization is a viable option. IDK? Then sewage needs to be solved because it is 40-50+ y/o lines.

You have Silicon Valley, Cupertino, Napa Valley, Shasta Mountains, Sierra Nevada Mountains, Beach Cities that can crank out significant money makers.

The other thing is most of the big populated States are having similar problems and not putting out similar GDPs. If we can get to our pre-9-11 potential or higher, that is when we will know things are changing. That seems far off right now.

We all got an email from our Chief Medical Officer today outlining the positives of the stimulus package for us as a health system. These two items in particular give me some sense of security since I do IT for our research division:

1. A major part of the stimulus package is devoted to health information technology. Physicians may be paid as much as $44,000 over the course of 5 years to implement healthcare IT. Again, we are in a very good position since we are developing CarePlus Next Generation and will link it to other physicians in the Health System.

2. NIH funding also received a $10B infusion from the stimulus package. Some of this will be devoted to infrastructure such as new buildings. We hope to compete for this designation since we have run out of research space. We are among the top 6% of institutions receiving NIH funding, so this would be a good investment of taxpayer dollars.

**They have talked that if they can build a new research building, the VP Research wants my boss and I to be in charge of IT for the whole Business Unit, not just our current department. This would be HUGE job security for me. HUGE. So, I guess that's my piece of the stimulus plan...

That's wonderful to hear. Thanks for sharing. :)

I'm not trying to marginalize what people are going through by speaking in a more general sense. I have close family members and friends who are going through a lot right now, between the loss of their jobs, losing value on their homes, and losing most of their retirement funds. So, please don't misunderstand my statements to mean that I don't see and understand the difficult situations that many people in this country are facing.

I meant it more from a cost/benefit perspective. I just don't want to see a situation where the government over-extends itself trying to help the immediate problem, and doesn't look at long-term issues. So, for example; if the government is over-extended on the current stimulus package, does that mean higher taxes for people who can't afford them? Does that mean that current benefit programs will get cut down the road? Will we be trading a temporary relief for long-term economic recovery?

I'm no economist, and I obviously don't have the answer to these problems. I understand the other side of the argument, and I'll admit I have a bias towards less government involvement if at all necessary.

And if one is a small government type, there's just more of a general concern that in some areas the "stimulus" is really just more spending and federal government creep. It seems much harder to remove something once it's been established than it does just never to start.

I suppose one upside to the various things in the stimulus that don't seem directly economically urgent to me is that by being in this package rather than in the general budget, there's a better chance the funding or programs will be regarded as being a one time or short term thing.

I am not an economist either, but, let's use our best judgment to make an informed decision...

Who knows what the future may hold? The best we can do is to have plans for them. The neat thing about plans is that they change, often... And as I have gotten older, hayle, all my plans have totally changed... The issue is the magnitude of the change. Yes, it is huge. Yes, the government may be over-extending itself. IMHO, there is a "silver lining" or pay-off in the end. Not only are we changing in philosophy and action, and this is metamorphosis... We are beginning to molt into our Chrysalis and afterward, we will NEVER be the what we were before. You, yourself might not want to change, but you have to. EVERYTHING must change, so goes the song...

I guess I am not fearful of changing anymore... And who knows, it might get a lot worse... But, what do we do, when we fall/fail? If we don't change, we will die, this country will die. As painful as it is, we have to do it. Maybe the process would be different if McCain won. But even he knows things have to change, too. And what's amazing, is McCain pretty much is serving the role to ask hard questions, respectfully and he is being fair about it, IMO. Which to me, shows his character as a person, a legislature and statesmen. If I was in his position, I would ask the same questions too.

Does President Obama listen to someone like Senator McCain? I don't think the media shows it, but you better believe if Senator McCain had some major issues (BIG issues) with the entire stim package, that piece of legislation would be dead in the water. And when I say major, I mean, major. But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. Then, President Obama responded by thanking him first. Then the media presented the cost overruns of something decided by the previous admin...

So, IMHO, it shows us that the United States is governed by 3 equal branches and there is more inclusion in the decisions that will shape US policy in the future. Whereas, before, the registered voters allowed our politicians free reign for so long.

If there is something anyone protest, contact your legislator or Whitehouse office. Start a letter writing campaign, vote your person out of office, etc. Raise funds to make the change more reflective to your ideals... Even serve yourself on a campaign. This is what inclusive politics is all about...

I guess I looked at that differently. I don't think his motives were in the right place on that issue.

Oh Senator McCain is definitely NOT drinking the President Obama crunk juice, but, all of them are politicians and that is something "they" do...

Aside from that, I just learned that due to too much de-regulation, many of the big banks invested their money in derivatives. Derivatives are very risky investment tools. While you can make a TON of money, which we saw, you can lose it faster... In order to make that kind of money to invest, risky loans were made to people clueless about the printed paper. Then when the balloon was made, if you jumped out quickly, you were probably okay. But if you tried to back out within the last 2 years, you were left holding the bag. It was a shakedown.

Now, while President Bush 2 was not told to correct this kind of investments, President Clinton didn't do it either... And this kind of investment was made on the tail end of President Reagan... So, it took roughly 22 years for us to crash! That's like a Ecstasy-Crystal Meth rush mixed with a little crack. Just nuts. And it unknown if President Obama will smoke that glass pee pee or not...

Folks like money, fast... Instant gratification... We have got to have an "intervention" on this one...

This ain't the Drinky Crow Show...