If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

I also wonder what massive change he is talking about. From where I stand it the same old politicians doing what they have been doing for the last 40 years.

Not sure I'd go that far. There will be changes, but I doubt they will be extreme, especially with efforts to keep the unity rather than keep wedging the various pieces apart with retributions.

They also won't happen very quickly, more like a few decades.

You are correct, however. The ground is shifting and there will be people who want to provoke the battles in a misguided belief that it is the only way to either speed up or prevent the shifts. All you have to do is look to the Middle East to see the centuries of similar struggles between class, race, societies, religions and politics and the inability to overcome the need for retribution. That's one of the reasons the building resentment and calls for retribution toward the United States gives the new CIA director concern. We'll have some really big problems if we're having to battle each other while needing to defend against external resentments and retributions.

The shifts are going to occur. If the world's people want to live in peace, we all need to figure out how we're going to do that. About the only thing that will stop the shifts from occurring is if we all wipe most of ourselves out with our nuclear weapons. Personally, I'd rather figure out what it is going to take to get along with each other and work toward it.

The ground is shifting for sure; some will see the glass as half full, and others see it as half empty. That's only natural, but change does not happen over night.

I believe most Americans are fair-minded and generous; that will not change.

It also shows that you dont have the ability to read minds or understand meanings.

When this bill was first mentioned, it was sold as a way to fix the economy, create jobs, and otherwise stimluate our economy.
Now we have people saying that unemployment will still go up under this bill, just not as fast.

If thats true, then the bill isnt delivering what it was intended to do.
Also, from what Ihave read (and I admit I havent read the whole bill yet), it seems like the bill is creating more temporary jobs instead of permanent jobs

To use one example, the Marshland restoration project that Nancy Pelosi wanted.
That will be a temporary project, not a permanent one.
Once those wetlands are restored, what happens to the people working on that project?
They will be out of work again.
Yet, I see nothing in the bill that addresses that,for those workers or any others that will be working in what amounts to temporary jobs.

They Sure Showed That Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 14, 2009
AM I crazy, or wasn’t the Obama presidency pronounced dead just days ago? Obama had “all but lost control of the agenda in Washington,” declared Newsweek on Feb. 4 as it wondered whether he might even get a stimulus package through Congress. “Obama Losing Stimulus Message War” was the headline at Politico a day later. At the mostly liberal MSNBC, the morning host, Joe Scarborough, started preparing the final rites. Obama couldn’t possibly eke out a victory because the stimulus package was “a steaming pile of garbage.”

Less than a month into Obama’s term, we don’t (and can’t) know how he’ll fare as president. The compromised stimulus package, while hardly garbage, may well be inadequate. Timothy Geithner’s uninspiring and opaque stab at a bank rescue is at best a place holder and at worst a rearrangement of the deck chairs on the TARP-Titanic, where he served as Hank Paulson’s first mate.

But we do know this much. Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again.

On Wednesday, as a stimulus deal became a certainty on Capitol Hill, I asked David Axelrod for his take on this Groundhog Day relationship between Obama and the political culture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15rich.html

Thomas and RG have hit the most imporatant part of this discussion...namely that even if this package does promote job creation...there is a very, very good chance that job loss will exceed the creation numbers...and the result will be a net loss in jobs.

Seems to me many conservative legislators see this...and are sitting on the side lines effectively "doing nothing"...so that at some point they will be able to say, "See, we told you the package was not going to work."

It will be bullshit...things probably would be much, much worse without the package...but they will be able to sell it nonetheless.

Summed up: We are in very deep ****...and getting out of it ain't gonna be easy.

Doing nothing is not an option...even if it is a reasonable political tactic for some.

I have echoed that same message; doing nothing is not an option. People seem to forget that we are now losing some 600,000 jobs every month when we need to create at the very minimum 150,000 every month to just keep up with demand. All total, that means we're losing three-quarters of a million jobs every month. Those conservative yokels wouldn't/couldn't understand economics if their life depended on it; they prefer to play politics. It's going to remain a net loss of jobs for many months and even years. If they take joy in a depression, they may get their wish.

All we need to do is look at the destruction they metted out during Bush's eight years in office; they never learn. There's no cure for stupid.

"Doing nothing is not an option."
"Doing nothing is not an home."
"Doing nothing is not like home."
"Doing nothing is place like home."
"Doing nothing no place like home."
"There's no place like home."
"There's no place like home."
"There's no place like home."

Now just click your ruby red slippers together 3 times....


"Doing nothing is not an option."
"Doing nothing is not an destruction."
"Doing nothing is not mass destruction."
"Doing nothing is of mass destruction."
"Doing nothing weapons of mass destruction."
"Doing has weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."


Just repeating something does not make it true.

What most of the world sees is Obama's attempt to bring bipartisanship into our government, but the republicans don't want any of it. They are now in the "minority" and hate it so much, they want their ideas to be "in charge" in a democratic majority congress. All they do is complain and try to filibuster their way into power through the media. It's not going to work, because even conservatives (MACs) are losing their jobs and homes. They're going to tell their reps what they can do with their jobs during the next election cycle.

That might be what they see CI...but what they'll see in 4 years could be a very different story.

Obama has put my future on red and the wheel is spinning.

It's what they expect is what's going to disappoint the many. This is going to be a very long-term process that's going to be very slow to see improvements.

Most people want to see improvements quickly; it ain't gonna happen.

I would have it no other way. You think we want to pass a new stimulus bill every few years and spend trillions of our money to make it permanent? The idea of stimulus is a temporary spending of public money to stimulate the economy in the short term.

The objective is not permanent employment, the idea is that things are supposed to eventually get better and no longer require our tax money as stimulus.

Then why is this your stock and store? You merely repeat that economists didn't accurately predict the depth of this crisis, which is really silly because you are essentially faulting them for merely not having access to the financials of the companies that triggered this to know how badly they were leveraged. Once this became clear, economists were fairly accurate in their assessments.

The housing bubble wouldn't have been a problem if lending institutions didn't leverage themselves this way, and you are faulting economists for not knowing that they did so?

Seriously, what do you bring to the table except repetition? What solutions are you proposing? The nonsensical crap about revolution?

If you fault the repetition that doing nothing is not an option how is that any worse than your repetition that all solutions are wrong? What are you bringing to the table other than repetition yourself?

Rinse, repeat.

Robert, I'd be happy with a plan that would encourage out country to SPEND LESS and SAVE MORE. I'd be happy with a plan that didn't increase the entire national debt by 40% in just a few short months. (Seriously though, was I imagining the outrage at Bush for suggesting that Americans spend money after 9/11? Didn't many liberals here complain about that at the time...isn't this was Obama is forcing Americans to do now?)

I don't know how we do that, but I know that doing the exact same thing that got us here reeks of idiocy.




As far as my repeating...I'm engaging in counter-propaganda.

I've never complained when someone repeated a TRUTH Robert.

Obama IS gambling with our future and NO ONE knows what will happen.

Bush increased the deficit for what? We're still paying for his war at the tune of $10 billion/month. That "should" be the outrage; it's not helping Americans. This stimulus plan with all it's wrinkles and pimples, at least helps Americans.

I never supported Bush.



It helps some Americans now....but will hurt generations to come. Not something I'm comfortable with.

Sure, it'll hurt future Americans, but doing nothing means it'll hurt everybody more. When your house is on fire, you don't worry too much about where the water is coming from - even during a draught. The neighbors also worry that their house will catch fire too! Maybe, some people would rather see all the houses burn down to save the water for the future.

When the houses are built on the tops of volcanoes, it might be a better idea, long term, to simply let them burn.