A second stimulus? They're nuts!

Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.

Nobel laureates in economic science and the most successful investor in US financial history believe that this stimulus is needed. What is your level of training in economics and in finance? Should your opinions be believed or even warrant attention when you use virtually no US economic data? Let me suggest that you are the one that is nuts as are some readers who consider your unsupported opinions credible. Prove me wrong. What are your economic credentials? Are they better than those mentioned above? What data are you using?

.... a few people have asked for a source of the 45 mil without insurance claim and not once has Interface provided it. Nor has anyone else.

They just go run and hide or repeat it again.

in February predicted the need for more stimulus to pull the economy out of the Bush recession:

For while Mr. Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.

Officially, the administration insists that the plan is adequate to the economy’s need. But few economists agree. And it’s widely believed that political considerations led to a plan that was weaker and contains more tax cuts than it should have — that Mr. Obama compromised in advance in the hope of gaining broad bipartisan support. We’ve just seen how well that worked.

Now, the chances that the fiscal stimulus will prove adequate would be higher if it were accompanied by an effective financial rescue, one that would unfreeze the credit markets and get money moving again. But the long-awaited announcement of the Obama administration’s plans on that front, which also came this week, landed with a dull thud.

The plan sketched out by Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wasn’t bad, exactly. What it was, instead, was vague. It left everyone trying to figure out where the administration was really going. Will those public-private partnerships end up being a covert way to bail out bankers at taxpayers’ expense? Or will the required “stress test” act as a back-door route to temporary bank nationalization (the solution favored by a growing number of economists, myself included)? Nobody knows.

Over all, the effect was to kick the can down the road. And that’s not good enough. So far the Obama administration’s response to the economic crisis is all too reminiscent of Japan in the 1990s: a fiscal expansion large enough to avert the worst, but not enough to kick-start recovery; support for the banking system, but a reluctance to force banks to face up to their losses. It’s early days yet, but we’re falling behind the curve.

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13krugman.html

or is this the 3rd? I've lost track. I guess that depends on what you called TARP under "W".