Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (69410)	2/10/2009 9:06:09 AM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Look, It's Not an Earmark as Long as You Don't Call It One The Campaign Spot Jim Geraghty Reporting A reader, watching Obama's town hall meeting, asks, <<< "What happened to Obama's legendarily succinct answers? A question about green technology has morphed into discussion of electronic health records." >>> I also notice that Obama is declaring, "This bill does not have a single earmark in it." He needs to read the bill more closely. What does he call the $200 billion for "one or more near zero emission powerplants” when the only one that had been on the Department of Energy's drawing board was FutureGen, a favorite of the Illinois congressional delegation and now-departed Gov. Rod Blagojevich? The one project that had been scuttled, and that the Obama administration had said it opposed, because of prohibitively enormous costs? I liked this succinct assessment from Ed Morrissey: "The problem in this bill isn’t in Elkhart, and neither is the solution." campaignspot.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (69410)	2/10/2009 11:35:08 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

By CBO’s estimates, economic output over the next two years will average 6.8 percent below its potential—that is, the level of output that would be produced if the economy’s resources were fully employed I've seen that measure a few time and find it odd. IMO its inaccurate and arrogant to think we can actually know what the economy would produce if all its resources where fully employed. Unemployment rate, reduction in real GDP, increase in unemployment rate, net loss of jobs, and other measurements are better IMO. (Not perfect, but then comparisons of economic stats, or even the stats themselves, are not perfect) By those measurements this downturn is so far similar to, or not as bad as, the 1981 recession, and not nearly as bad as other recessions which most people have never heard of in 1948, 1953, and 1958. scienceblogs.com nypost.com