Never trust a guy who looks like he had a lead role in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.”
Chucky seen here rehearsing for his new role in “Who Screwed the American People (Again!).”
Posted on 11/23/2008 8:26:25 AM PST by yoe
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday said an economic recovery plan would have to cost $500 to $700 billion in order to be effective.
Noting that the economy is in “serious, serious trouble,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that a recovery plan would need to be “pretty big.”
“We’re on the edge of deflation. Once you get into deflation, you almost never get out. That’s what the Great Depression taught us. That’s what Japan taught us,” Schumer said. “So a strong shot in the arm, just the way Barack Obama has conceived it, infrastructure, green jobs, is what is needed.”
The senator also expressed confidence that Congress would be able to pass such a plan before President-elect Obama takes office to have it “on his desk by Inauguration Day.”
Schumer said his vision of the economic stimulus is “a little like having a new New Deal, but you do it before a depression occurs, not after.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, did not immediately reject such a plan.
“Well, I would like to see the details of any stimulus package: what it would do, how it would work, who would benefit from it,” said Shelby, who also appeared on the program. “What we need is to really get the economy going. I think it’s fair to say that we Republicans will look at the details and see if we can support it. I want to support things that are meaningful for the economy, and I believe Senator Schumer does, too.”
Shelby indicated that he could support such a massive plan “if it would accelerate appreciation, things like that; tax incentives for people to hire, to retool and things like that,” as well as invest in education and infrastructure.
Oh yeah, that will really get things going! /s
They probably are Government jobs running around enforcing all the economy-killing mandates the ecowhackos want passed.
So we have some deflation now and democrats want to spend lots of $$$ ,that we dont have without creating or borrowing(ala GWB) it. This has to be inflationary eventually. So maybe we government jobs and some inflation and unemployment benefits? Is that an accurate picture? And how can the public be turned against this idea, or are we just screwed for a decade as some predict?
I assume their bills will be loaded with crap to get it passed and the faster they can get them through, the less we will know.
I have an old book by James Dale Davidson ‘The Great Reckoning’ that predicted this for the 1990s under Clinton, war debt, deficits, deflation, massive stimulus packages, .... looks like now not then
I advocate Chuckles the Clown to be jettisoned to Somalia for pirate lessons. Ain’t much difference in the two.
We are in the process of nationalizing financials because of short selling. Houses will be next or some other industry. So on which end of the transaction should the government be on? Of course, I could borrow your house from your bank and sell it, would that make you feel better? My IOU is good. The government says it’s OK.
Isn’t ‘Deflation’ another way of saying ‘prices seeking their correct level’?
Further, short selling is a legitimate activity that plays an important role in pricing securities. It would destabilize markets in the long term to ban it, and make speculative bubbles all the larger.
And it's absolutely ridiculous to call short selling profits “theft.” Sure, there are a few cases of real market manipulation, but most short sellers are perfectly legitimate.
Never trust a guy who looks like he had a lead role in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.”
Chucky seen here rehearsing for his new role in “Who Screwed the American People (Again!).”
The man has said some incredibly ignorant things over the years, but Chuckie's managed to outdo himself this time. If the above statement were true, we'd be closing in on our eightieth year of deflation.
Bubba happened to luck out...But first...he raised taxes including the fuel tax. Then the electronic age took over...millions of people were electronically stimulated...and so was the market. Folks got paid and spent it all and a little bit extra...Voila...DEBT!!
Republicans are holding their fire until they know the outcome of the Coleman and Chambliss races. Strategy would be different if the GOP has at least 41 Senators than if they have 40 or less. At this point, the GOP is just being non-committal, IMO.
If we can manage to keep a camera in his face 24/7 he will be preoccupied listening to his own pompus dribble and we may never hear from him again.
As did Bush and Hillary, Obama, McCain....
I think the whole lot should be purged.
I've been wondering why the government is giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the holders of consumer debt, instead of giving that money to the people in debt to pay off their debt.
What are the pro's/con's of keeping the debt holders viable, but not the debtors themselves? What would have happened if the people in debt were given the money to pay off their debt? Would that money have worked its way back to the same financial institutions in the end?
-PJ
B/c the amount of money created out of thin air by Wall St schemes over the last 10-20yrs dwarfs the amount of money being injected by the Fed.
The de-leveraging, declining values of homes/market/bonds, etc. has decimated trillions & trillions of leveraged capital.
Keep in mind, we have fiat money compounded with fractional reserve banking, excessive gov't/corp. debt, consumer credit, deficit spending, leverage/margin, & every other ponzi-scheme known to mankind unraveling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.