Comments on: Republicans Oppose Stimulus, Laud It

By: Web Smith

Web Smith — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:20:42 +0000

This bill is not all pork. The part that's not is really, really bad. New Law

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:17:23 +0000

If $25T have been removed from the European economy, our stimulus is (as some fear) small change.

And yet, we are encouraged to become more like the Europeans as a solution to this problem. What's wrong with this picture?

By: odograph

odograph — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:03:26 +0000

In case anyone wants to float again the idea that this mess is less than it appears, and an invention of US liberals, consider this fragment from John Maudlin (via Barry Ritholz RSS feed):

In a few paragraphs I am going to put up a chart from Nouriel Roubini’s RGE Monitor on the size of US bank losses, and in a few pages I’ll comment on the Geithner “plan” for rescuing US banks. We have indeed dug ourselves a very deep hole here in the US.

But European banks may be in far worse shape. Bruno Waterfield of the London Daily Telegraph reports to have seen an eyes-only document prepared by the European Commission for the finance ministers of the various EU member countries. The problem revealed in the report is an estimated write-down by European banks in the range of 16 trillion pounds, or about $25 trillion dollars! The concern is that bailing out the various national banks for such an unbelievable amount would push the cost of government borrowing to much higher levels than we see today.

I'd give a link but I don't see the article on the http://www.ritholtz.com site, yet.

If $25T have been removed from the European economy, our stimulus is (as some fear) small change.

By: odograph

odograph — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:05:16 +0000

My prize for the best headline goes to: Is $800 Billion Too Big or Too Small? Yes. As I've said, the situation (arguably a compromise) supports both fringes ... for now. I suppose that if the downturn becomes more severe (more than the typical voter now expects), it will be net-bad for Republicans. I mean in a mild recession they have cover for a "natural" recovery, but in an arguable depression, less so: In a historic first, S&P 500 companies will post a net loss (Go ahead, someone tell me that those earnings are imaginary, fear-mongering.)

By: Spoker

Spoker — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:49:39 +0000

And so even before the signing of the bill the construction of the fall-back position of the 'the Republicans made me do it' begins. Someone needs to get faster drying ink for the Presidents pens.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:36:22 +0000

I am taken just now, and somewhat amused by the notion that the vectors involved with this post and that of "God and Disaster" are quite similar in that the constructs are so massive that they are not easily explained. So massive, that seemingly self conflicting positions, may not be so.

I suppose I'll have to think about this a bit more.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:58:25 +0000

Republicans want to cut other people's government spending, just not that which benefits their state or Congressional district. This mirrors the Democrats who want to increase taxes on everyone, except for themselves. The only real difference between the two is that Dems have been a little more likely to balance taxes and spending. Since supply side came in, Republicans have only increased debt.

Steve