Ron Paul: Stimulus Packages Will Turn Recession Into A Depression

[Ramo]

You don't understanding my point. If they didn't add the entire stimulus to FY '09, the labels inherently don't make sense. "Without stimulus" has to exclude TARP. Arithmetic says so.

And TARP I+II (i.e. both halves of the initial appropriation)+Stimulus FY 09 is probably going to be significantly more than the difference between the two graphs (6.7% of GDP using the Senate version).

Where did you get this anyways?

Edit:
Are you suggesting that there's a secret appropriation that Geithner has proposed, known only to "Strategas"?

[Naked Gents Rut]

You don't understanding my point.

Well, with grammar like this, who can blame me?

Where did you get this anyways?

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com

appropriation that Geithner has proposed

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319689681827391.html

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13110554

[snoopy369]

Ah, blogspot, that most trusted of references.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No, really...

Ah, blogspot, that most trusted of references.

You are a ****ing moron.

[Ramo]

I made a typo. Teh horrors. But that actually doesn't count as a rebuttal.

The numbers are bull****. I'm surprised Mankiw would post something like that.

[Ramo]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123319689681827391.html

http://www.economist.com/finance/dis...ry_id=13110554

Thanks, but I don't see the ~$550 billion number that you believe Geithner has proposed at some point.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Given that the proposed costs for TARP II range up to $2 trillion, an estimate of ~$550 billion doesn't seem outlandish.

[Ramo]

Putting in a specific number for a hypothetical appropriation of unknown size that could either not happen or not fall under this fiscal year is either retarded or intellectually dishonest.

I also don't think that's what the graph maker did. The numbers work out pretty well if he placed the entire stimulus in FY 09.

[Naked Gents Rut]

So now you're *****ing because forecasting isn't an exact science?

edit:

A major element of the strategy calls for enlisting private investors to join a new public-private partnership that would buy $500 billion to $1 trillion in toxic mortgage-backed securities and other assets from banks and other financial institutions. The hope is that the financial sector, relieved of these risky holdings, will resume normal operations, supplying the everyday credit that is the lifeblood of the economy. ...

The administration also envisions having the Treasury put up $100 billion to expand an existing Federal Reserve program aimed at spurring as much as $1 trillion in new consumer and business lending. ...

Geithner, however, provided little information on the administration's long-awaited, $50-billion plan to reduce home foreclosures that is now scheduled to be unveiled in the next few weeks.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy11-2009feb11,0,4690912.story

Seems like a pretty conservative estimate.

[Ramo]

Yes, forecasting future major policies that the Treasury Secretary has never proposed isn't an exact science. Or an inexact science. More like astrology. And making up specific numbers and putting them under the heading of "TARP" is either retarded or dishonest.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You really need to follow the news more closely. It's no fun pwning you all the time because you haven't read the papers.

[Ramo]

Seems like a pretty conservative estimate.

No. The line Geithner has right now is that it's all coming from the second half of TARP. As for getting past $350 billion, that's why your article talks about private investors.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The line Geithner has right now is that it's all coming from the second half of TARP.

Those expenditures would be in addition to using the second half of the $700-billion financial rescue program enacted last fall to inject more money into large, struggling banks -- but with tighter oversight and more accountability than in the first half of the program, Geithner said.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy11-2009feb11,0,4690912.story

Like I said, you need to start reading the news.

[Ramo]

You're totally dishonest. The preceding paragraph:

The administration also envisions having the Treasury put up $100 billion to expand an existing Federal Reserve program aimed at spurring as much as $1 trillion in new consumer and business lending.

$100 billion. Not 550. Not $2 trillion.

[Naked Gents Rut]

sigh...

Geithner said the Obama administration wouldn't ask for more funds beyond the remaining $350 billion of bailout money until it was clear the government had a plan that was working, but he indicated that such a request would eventually come.

"I'm not standing here before you today to ask you to authorize more resources," Geithner told the Senate panel. "I want to be candid, though, that I think this is going to be an expensive problem for the nation and it's going to require substantial resources."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy11-2009feb11,0,4690912.story?page=2

Anyone who would estimate Treasury spending on bank bailouts in the coming year as simply the second-half of TARP is a moron who isn't paying attention to the public statements of Geithner and others.

You're totally dishonest

I'm dishonest? You're the person that just said Geithner was only requesting money that has already been appropriated under TARP, which is demonstrably not true. I was demonstrating that.