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...

I agree with a large part of this. I mean, although I think friction between the branches is necessary to effective governance (checks and balances and all that), it's also gratifying when people can reach across party lines when necessary. It's one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for someone like Senator Kennedy, who is able to work with Republicans on a whole host of issues.

It's also good to see you understand the McCain questions. I think it's too easy for people to play partisan politics, and not recognize that there are questions to be asked about the stimulus plan, questions to be asked about the long term plans with respect to economic recovery. I do think that a certain measure of both McCain's question and Obama's response were about the show, about the politics of the situation. At the end of the day, I think we all recognize there was a bit of political theatre to both of their statements.

I do agree, though, that getting involved is extremely worthwhile. I've supported candidates on the local level (although CT and MA aren't the most Republican-friendly states), and I fully expect to support my candidate of choice when/if he runs for President in 2012.

I personally think friction between the branches can sometimes hinder effective governance. I think you can maintain checks and balances without friction.

You're right. That is something they do. :) However, I certainly don't think he would've done much complaining about the new Marine Ones if HE had been the one using them. I loved Obama's response.



As far as the issues with the economy...I'm waiting to see how things will work out in the next few years.

I think friction is important in our branches. I think that friction is what makes the two party system work. Friction doesn't mean 'stalemate' as has occurred at times. Friction means a questioning of methods to achieve a common goal, to me. I think the friction keeps things fairly moderate, which is where we ultimately should be to be a fair representation of the whole country. I believe that some of our best policies, like workfare and the current ADC rules, come from the compromises necessary due to friction. See, I'm not as big of bleeding heart liberal as y'all tend to think I am :)

Exactly! There's a line somewhere between productive friction and stalemate, and as long as there's some friction, as long as there are those checks and balances, I think things work a lot better.