does anyone expect the stimulus package to have a real & lasting effect on the economic nosedive?

[dysfunctional press]

personally, i think that MUCH more dramatic action is going to be needed, and this whole political show will ultimately be a colossal waste of time and resources.

i think that large-scale systemic changes are going to be necessary- universal single-payer healthcare, and nationalizing consumer banking are two of the things i'd like to see.

[FreakinDJ]

1. NO - Only Re-Regulating Banking can do that

[whistle]

2. Buys time for the current administration to keep the economic crisis in check

...while real solutions can be devised and put in place. Politically will be good for Obama while republican obstructionists can be kept down or neutralized

[northernlights]

3. a dead cat bounce at best

I think it will give some of us a last chance to restructure our lives to be as self-sufficient as possible before the nosedive resumes and accelerates...at least I hope there's a last chance. otherwise I'm done.

[4 t 4]

4. To me at this point

I guess it's better that nothing but with all the amendments they have ruined it. Our President should veto it or pull it back or do whatever he can and reinstate it to it's original version the way he wanted it and demand a vote in both house and senate by what maybe Tues. or Wed. He can do that right ? In it's present version it is sure to barely scratch the surface. Isn't that what this is all about so we will then hear "I told you this wouldn't work" in the mean time Americans die daily-literally!

[sandnsea]

5. It isn't intended to be a 100% fix

Fixing the banking system and then passing new regulations will still be required. New trade agreements and fixing health care will too.

[4 t 4]

9. My opening sentence

was I guess it's better than nothing I agree with you

[Lucinda]

6. Nope.

I really don't.

[jazzjunkysue]

7. It buys time to go after the hedge funds and derivatives. Then we can get the

money back from them.

[emilyg]

8. No.

[TripleKatPad]

10. No

The Dems have done what they always do. Cave. Good luck and good night.

[undeterred]

11. We have to get rid of the mindset before we can change the economy.

Translation: We have to get the Republicans and their passion for tax cuts out of office.

[Tutonic]

12. It will if they stop blowing the treasury in Iraq. That would pay for

a boatlaod of public works programs, educational programs and services. I'm thinkin that this may be what Obama has in mind.

[Ilsa]

29. ITA. But others think Obama will have to keep

a pretty large military presence (35,000) there for his entire presidency. Rick Somebody, an author was on Meet the Press and said there is plenty of dictator material among the ranks of Iraqi generals.

I hope we can bail sooner rather than later. Let the middle east simmer while we develop our own energy technology to free us from dependence on them.

[blues90]

13. Who knows , it's so complicated and includes only a few

I am personally srewed no matter what comes out of this bill. It may save some jobs and I can't tell if it will create any new jobs or even slow the everyday job loses that we see everyday.

These corporations are going to cut jobs back to favor their stock holders and keep their company going no matter what, at least that's the way I see it.

Who the hell knows , I certainly don't , I have no idea what will come of this. It may be all a political move just to look good as if in doing something in the first 100 days or it might actually help some people which is at least a gain in the right direction.

But hell . if you just look at all that has been burned to the ground in just the last 8 years most of what's left is ashes of many who have already gone right down the global sinkhole and there is no one left to speak for them.

Maybe we should begin to think outside the box and foster communities where at least those people left out can at least survive if it is done the right way. Perhaps government is not the solution for most people to hold onto.

As I said , who the hell knows what the result will be other than many people will be left out in the cold. It does not include everyone that I can see.

[Marr]

14. It might have.

Unfortunately, it seems the Republicans have been allowed to neuter it in the name of "bipartisanship".

[jwirr]

15. I think it could work if the economy were the only thing we were dealing

with. It may actually work of a short while in the same way that it worked for FDR but we have more problems that FDR had. He had abundant oil supplies we do not and a good share of ours are imported. He had an industrial base to work from - we have sent ours overseas. He had plenty of water and reasonable weather - we have neither.

So I think it may, as another poster said, "buy us enough time" to get our ducks in a row so we can at least be self sufficient to a point. And so we can strengthen our local governments.

I hope it will work and that President Obama will follow it up with some real lifestyle changes that will help when considering the whole picture.

[PurityOfEssence]

16. It's like William Goldman's first law of Hollywood: "Nobody knows anything"

I don't think ANYONE really knows what to do.

People are not spending. That will cause contractions that cause contractions that...

Creating jobs and keeping people employed is the ONLY thing that seems to have a chance, and it would seem that all monies should be bent to that purpose.

Still, even the greybeards are at a loss here, and the wisest of them are the ones who admit it.

It's a conundrum: the economy is based on confidence, but nobody has any. Self-interest reigns supreme, and for economic oracles, it's a nasty little spot to be in: they don't want to be the naysayers who drive it down further, but they need to be correct for their word to mean something in the future.

I think that this is the nasty little secret behind the Administration's manic craving for bipartisanship: it's not really convinced that it has the answer, so it wants everyone to share some exposure. That may be many things, but it's not leadership.

[dysfunctional press]

17. universal singl-payer healthcare would give a lot of people more confidence...

and one less BIG reason to worry.

[MaraJade]

18. Absolutely NOT!

Changes need to be made to the tax code; specifically, we need to get the Child Tax Credit
to be expanded to any child under age 24 who is a student--

We also need to have the current Bankruptcy Law reworked to allow primary homes to be
refinanced at CURRENT VALUE, and we need to have the usurious consumer interest rates limited to no
more than 5% over prime.

Furthermore, we need to have the consumer interest rates restored to deductibility under
income taxes.

These things will do much to help the middle class.

[Occam Bandage]

19. No, I expect it to have a real and short-term effect, which is what it is intended to do. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

20. on the nosedive..... yes... I think it will slow the rate at which jobs are being lost

and give us a chance to try and pull ourselves out of it.

[KillCapitalism]

21. Not unless it creates 15 million+ jobs.

I really don't see that kind of job creation happening unless we bring back most of our manufacturing base, IT sector, etc. back from slave labor countries. Reducing unemployment is crucial to the recovery. When people have secure jobs, they go back to buying homes, cars, and other items which further stabilizes the rest of the economy.

As others have stated above, more banking regulations are needed.

[sohndrsmith]

22. I don't know. What I DO know is that we are damn lucky to have

the best possible person at the helm as we brace for this mess...

[DFW]

23. If applied properly, yes. If butchered and neutered, no.

The butchering and neutering has already begun. It is not too soon for Obama to use his
legendary oratory skills to take the case to the public. Congress seems, as usual, to be
hiding behind the first chair they can find the moment some talk show host on National Hate
Radio says, "BOO!"

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Yes, If Well Executed

The primary effort should be to generate a cycle of continuing demand so jobs create more jobs.

It's worked here. It worked in Britain. It worked in Japan. It worked in Germany.

Seems like the track record is solid. Again, assuming that the priorities and strategy are sound.
GAC

[HamdenRice]

25. But...

it's more fun the scream about inevitable disaster!

:hi:

A lot of DUers seem actually to be looking forward to Great Depression II, and the more extreme ones, the neo-Malthusians and neo-tribablists, look forward to their "great die-off" no less.

That said, successfully stimulating the economy not really that complicated -- as you point out, it's a matter of increasing aggregate demand through deficit spending.

The question then is entirely political. Can the Democrats get the thing passed? Can they explain macro-economics to the public? If so, can the Obama administration execute it?

The record of Keynesian economics is pretty straightforward, and the consensus of economists is that if it is done correctly, it will work.

My only concern is where we meet the limit of global savings appetite for investing in our debt. Right now that appetite is huge because everything else is so risky, and it makes sense to borrow mightily now to finance the stimulus.

[closeupready]

26. No.

n/t

[mdmc]

27. Of course not - this is a huge waste of taxpayer money

The only decent things in this bill are Obama's advocacy for union labor and the lame buy American clause.

[Mari333]

28. wont last until corporations are forced to bring jobs back

into the USA..and be fined for taking them out. fat chance, with the politicians in their pockets. and both wars have to end, and the defense dept needs to be slashed by 2/3. Fat chance, with the politicians in their pockets. I am just preparing myself for living in a serf society til I pass over.