<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Will Health Care Reform Make Us Sick?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/consumer-experience/" rel="tag">Consumer Experience</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/jnj/" rel="tag">Johnson and Johnson (JNJ)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/nvs/" rel="tag">Novartis AG ADS (NVS)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/mrk/" rel="tag">Merck and Co (MRK)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/isrg/" rel="tag">Intuitive Surgical Inc (ISRG)</a></p><img hspace="4" vspace="4" border="1" align="right" style="width: 284px; height: 188px;" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2009/08/hd-08-18-09.jpg" />President Obama made it to the oval office with a sincere promise to reform health care in the United States and make it available to those without. Great idea, bad timing. It might also contribute to the bankruptcy of our nation and no amount of hoping, praying and playing with numbers and research reports will alter our path if we spend money we do not have for very much longer.<br />
<br />
<strong>Contentious Bill</strong><br />
<br />
This is a noble task and Obama has energized a national discussion that has led to Senate and House Democrats navigating treacherous straits to piece together recently signed legislation.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Will Health Care Reform Make Us Sick?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/">Will Health Care Reform Make Us Sick?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:10:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19135532/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/04/13/will-health-care-reform-make-us-sick/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>cost control</category><category>featured</category><category>Federal deficit</category><category>Federal Spending</category><category>health insurance</category><category>healthcare</category><category>ISRG</category><category>jnj</category><category>MRK</category><category>NVS</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:10:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[State of the Union to Include a Proposed Spending Freeze]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/headline-news/" rel="tag">Headline News</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2010/01/obama-geithner-ap.jpg" />President Obama has been under severe pressure to rein in federal spending, both from Americans here at home as well as trading partners like China.</p>
<p>During his State of the Union message on Wednesday, Obama is expected announce <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection">a three-year spending freeze for 1/6 of the federal budget</a>.</p>
<p>The proposal will include freezes in discretionary spending in the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture and Health and Human Services. The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending or 17% of the total federal budget.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>State of the Union to Include a Proposed Spending Freeze</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/">State of the Union to Include a Proposed Spending Freeze</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19331280/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/01/26/president-to-propose-a-spending-freeze-for-the-federal-budget/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>federal spending</category><category>inthenews</category><category>Obama</category><category>spending freeze</category><category>State of the Union</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Connie Madon]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Guns and butter: Can the U.S. have both at the same time?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2009/12/lbj-200x150.jpg" alt="" />In the 1960s, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ">President Lyndon Johnson's</a> economic/social policy, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ#Great_Society">Great Society,</a> came up against a counterforce and competing claim few in public policy circles at that time had expected: Lyndon Johnson himself.</p>
<p>Johnson, in a decision that would alter U.S. society and the cultural landscape, chose to escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and vastly increased government defense spending. The spending, when combined with spending for the Great Society, posed the question: "Could the U.S. economy tolerate increased government spending for defense and for social programs without an increase in inflation?" This is known in economics circles as the "guns and butter" question.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Guns and butter: Can the U.S. have both at the same time?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/">Guns and butter: Can the U.S. have both at the same time?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19276971/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/12/14/guns-and-butter-can-the-u-s-have-both-at-the-same-time/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>budget deficit</category><category>defense spending</category><category>deficits</category><category>economic policy</category><category>federal spending</category><category>George W. Bush</category><category>Great Society</category><category>guns and butter</category><category>inflation</category><category>Iraq War</category><category>LBJ</category><category>Lyndon Johnson</category><category>Republican Party</category><category>tax cuts</category><category>tax increase</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Health Care's costs &amp; the misguided debate]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/jnj/" rel="tag">Johnson and Johnson (JNJ)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/abt/" rel="tag">Abbott Laboratories (ABT)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/nvs/" rel="tag">Novartis AG ADS (NVS)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2009/07/red_cross.jpg" alt="" />In recent stories I have highlighted several health care stocks that I think would be strong candidates for small portfolios (<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/29/serious-money-five-high-yield-safe-diversifed-stocks/">Part 1 </a>and <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/14/serious-money-five-more-high-yield-safe-diversified-stocks/">Part 2</a>) that would be safe and pay high yields. These include: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/johnson-and-johns-dc/jnj/nys">Johnson and Johnson</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/johnson-and-johns-dc/jnj/nys">JNJ</a>), <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/abbott-laboratories/abt/nys">Abott Laboratories</a> (NYSE:<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/abbott-laboratories/abt/nys"> ABT</a>) and <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/novartis-ag-ads/nvs/nys">Novartis AG ADS</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/novartis-ag-ads/nvs/nys">NVS</a>). I have been thinking about these companies and how others will fare in the health care debate.<br /><br />While Washington debates the merits of various health care bills, the health care companies lobby to influence the outcome. Businesses and employees are resistant to taxing current health care benefits but very few people are opposed to taxing those that get big paychecks.<br /><br />I think we are heading down the wrong path regarding health care "reform" once again. There is no question that most people want to improve health care in many respects, including but not limited to, the quality, cost, and delivery, but the devil is in the details and we may end up no better off than we started except of course with more complexity and greater cost.<br /><em><span class="symbol"><em></em></span><em></em></em><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Health Care's costs &amp; the misguided debate</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/">Health Care's costs &amp; the misguided debate</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/19104479/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/health-cares-costs-and-the-misguided-debate/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>ABT</category><category>deficit spending</category><category>DeficitSpending</category><category>featured</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>Health Care</category><category>Health costs</category><category>HealthCare</category><category>HealthCosts</category><category>JNJ</category><category>medical spending</category><category>MedicalSpending</category><category>NVS</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Economic firestorm: Which costs more, stealing or stupidity?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2009/03/fire-break.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />The economic firestorm that we are in the midst of is yet to be contained, or for that matter, completely understood.<br /><br />Some things are very clear like the fact we spent more than we earned, as individuals and as a nation, for decades on end. That we know for sure, and regardless of who we blame the most for this situation there is no bigger economic mistake one can make.<br /><br />This is something that I harp on often, and I expect I will keep on doing so because I do not have any reason to believe things will change; see: <a title="View Ignore Washington -- keep saving; General Patton makes a point on BloggingStocks" href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/26/ignore-washington-keep-saving-general-patton-makes-a-point/" target="_blank">Ignore Washington -- keep saving; General Patton makes a point</a>.<br /><br /><em><br /></em><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Economic firestorm: Which costs more, stealing or stupidity?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/">Economic firestorm: Which costs more, stealing or stupidity?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:40:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1456317/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/03/09/economic-firestorm-which-cost-more-stealing-or-stupidity/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>balanced budget</category><category>BalancedBudget</category><category>Congress</category><category>Economic Fire Breaks</category><category>Economic Fire Storm</category><category>EconomicFireBreaks</category><category>EconomicFireStorm</category><category>featured</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>Health Care</category><category>HealthCare</category><category>national debt</category><category>NationalDebt</category><category>President Bush</category><category>President Obama</category><category>PresidentBush</category><category>PresidentObama</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><category>stealing</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:40:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Re-think new stimulus package? Push infrastructure!]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/international-markets/" rel="tag">International Markets</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/headline-news/" rel="tag">Headline News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/financial-crisis/" rel="tag">Financial Crisis</a></p><img alt="" hspace="4" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/11/cash-wad.jpg" align="right" vspace="4" border="1" />CNBC is reporting a <a title="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/bbdp/second-stimulus-may-arrive-by-christmas/239446" href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/bbdp/second-stimulus-may-arrive-by-christmas/239446" rel="bookmark">Second Stimulus May Arrive by Christmas</a> - I hope it looks different than the last one.<br /><br />It is being reported that <blockquote>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday urged passage of at least $61 billion in new economic stimulus funding this month, but said the future of the legislation requires the cooperation of Republicans in the Senate and President Bush.</blockquote><strong>I am having deja vu all over again</strong>!<em> </em>At least $61 billion but discussions are ranging up to several hundred billion dollars<em>.</em> I hate this idea and stated so numerous times last March,<em> </em>including one of my most important stories of the year<em> (I think) </em><a title="View Fund roads &amp; bridges NOT mad money stimulus on BloggingStocks" href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/" target="_blank">Fund roads &amp; bridges NOT mad money stimulus</a>.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Re-think new stimulus package? Push infrastructure!</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/">Re-think new stimulus package? Push infrastructure!</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:19:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1364353/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/11/06/re-think-new-stimulous-package-push-infrastructure/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>featured</category><category>Federal Spending</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>Nancy Pelosi</category><category>NancyPelosi</category><category>roads and bridges</category><category>Stimulate infrastructure</category><category>StimulateInfrastructure</category><category>stimulus package</category><category>StimulusPackage</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:19:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[$700 billion is real money! ]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rumors/" rel="tag">Rumors</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/scandals/" rel="tag">Scandals</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/mandftoday/" rel="tag">Money and Finance Today</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/headline-news/" rel="tag">Headline News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/leh/" rel="tag">Lehman Br Holdings (LEH)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/09/benjamin-franklin.jpg" alt="" />How many billions are Paulson and Bernanke asking for? Seven hundred billion dollars. <span style="font-style: italic;">N</span><em>ow that's real money!</em> And the administration is touting this new program as if they knew what they were talking about.</p>
<p>We have heard folks wondering how and why Treasury Secretary Paulson should be given the power and discretion to do as he sees fit with this bailout money.</p>
<p>We have heard people speaking about the pain and the injustice, along with the doubts and reservations about the concept of giving away so much money. <br /></p>
<p>Actually giving this handout to companies that have demonstrated such corrupt thinking and irresponsibility (see <a title="View SEC opens the gates and the world drowns on BloggingStocks" href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/18/sec-opens-the-gates-and-the-world-drowns/" target="_blank"><font color="#55629b">SEC opens the gates and the world drowns)</font></a> is a supreme injustice given that their decisions led to the collapse of once-mighty financial industry titans. See <a title="View Lehman Bros 158-year sad ending on BloggingStocks" href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/23/lehman-bros-158-year-sad-ending/" target="_blank"><font color="#55629b">Lehman Bros 158-year sad ending</font></a> for just one example.</p>
<p>Has anyone asked how the Treasury came up with that number? Can someone explain the difference between $700 billion and <em>a blank check?</em></p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>$700 billion is real money! </em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/">$700 billion is real money! </a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:15:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1323031/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/24/the-truth-700-billion-is-real-money/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Bankers</category><category>Bernanke</category><category>Dirksen</category><category>Federal Reserve</category><category>Federal Spending</category><category>FederalReserve</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>inthenews</category><category>LEH</category><category>lehman brothers</category><category>LehmanBrothers</category><category>LEHMQ</category><category>Paulson</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><category>treasury</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:15:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[CBO: U.S. budget deficit to exceed $400 billion thru 2010]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/presidential-elections/" rel="tag">Presidential Elections</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" alt=""  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/09/capitol.jpg" />"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen"><br /></a></p>
<p>To paraphrase the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen">Senator Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois</a>), if a couple billion is real money, what's $400 billion amount to? Fiscal trouble for the United States, says an economist. <br /><br />The U.S. federal budget deficit will double this year, to $407 billion, from $161 billion last year, the Congressional Budget Office announced Tuesday, in its revised baseline projection report (<a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/Selected_Tables.pdf">pdf</a>).<br /><br /><a href="http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=159">The CBO said</a> a weakening economy, spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and the War on Terror, higher entitlement spending, and a slowing growth rate in federal receipts are among the factors that will push the deficit to 3% of GDP this fiscal year, which ends September 30. <br /><br />The deficit will rise to $438 billion next year, fiscal 2009, remain roughly at that level, $431 billion, in fiscal 2010, before tapering to $325 billion in fiscal 2011. <br /><br />The CBO also expects U.S. GDP to grow just 1.5% in 2008 and slow to 1.1% in 2009.  </p>
<p>Economist Glen Langan said the multiple $400 billion deficits are bad enough, but they could rise considerably, if the <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/news/index1.html">U.S. Treasury's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not go well.</a> "If the housing market does not stabilize in the year ahead, Treasury could end up spending tens of billions more per year," Langan said. "Nearly all of that cost would be born by the taxpayer, which means the deficit will increase." </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>CBO: U.S. budget deficit to exceed $400 billion thru 2010</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/">CBO: U.S. budget deficit to exceed $400 billion thru 2010</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1308863/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/09/cbo-says-u-s-budget-deficit-to-exceed-400-billion-thru-2010/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>2008 election</category><category>budget deficit</category><category>CBO</category><category>Congressional Budget Office</category><category>federal spending</category><category>fiscal policy</category><category>gdp</category><category>income taxes</category><category>interest rates</category><category>inthenews</category><category>McCain</category><category>national debt</category><category>Obama</category><category>tax cut</category><category>taxes</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>U.S. Government</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Is infrastructure investment good for the U.S. economy?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/international-markets/" rel="tag">International Markets</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/china/" rel="tag">China</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/01/constructio.jpg" alt="" />New York Times columnist <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27friedman.html">Thomas Friedman,</a> who perhaps most-accurately conceptualized the revolutionary production shifts implied by globalization in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-3-0-History-Twenty-first/dp/0312425074/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1220025457&amp;sr=1-1"><span style="font-style: italic;">The World Is Flat,</span></a> has a 'radical' economic prescription for the United States, as it moves toward the second decade in what is quickly becoming the century of change.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27friedman.html">Friedman suggests</a> that the United States try nation-building....at home. <br /><br />Moreover, Friedman makes the case for nation-building as good for U.S. business - - a much-needed shot-in-the-arm for the U.S. economy.<br /><strong><br />U.S.: inadequate infrastructures for a major power</strong><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27friedman.html">Friedman's main concern:</a> the U.S.'s inadequate infrastructure (electric grid, roads/bridges/rail network, air travel system, hospitals, among others), which is antiquated compared to the infrastructure of the U.S.'s chief economic rival, China. Friedman has just attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and its clear China's public investments - - better airports, roads, parks, to go along with the sports venues - - have impressed him. <br /><br />It's also clear to Friedman that the U.S.'s period of underinvestment is holding the nation back economically, and that has to change if the U.S. expects to remain commercially competitive on the global stage. Economist David H. Wang told BloggingStocks he agrees, for the most part, with Friedman's analysis, but adds that the journey to a better infrastructure is not a strictly an economic equation.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Is infrastructure investment good for the U.S. economy?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/">Is infrastructure investment good for the U.S. economy?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:23:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1299329/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/29/is-infrastructure-investment-good-for-the-u-s-economy/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>China</category><category>emerging markets</category><category>exports</category><category>federal spending</category><category>federal taxes</category><category>Friedman</category><category>gdp</category><category>globalization</category><category>income taxes</category><category>infrastructure</category><category>inthenews</category><category>McCain</category><category>Obama</category><category>taxes</category><category>Thomas Friedman</category><category>trade</category><category>U.S. economy</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:23:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Recession, housing seen increasing budget deficit for new president]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/fnm/" rel="tag">Federal Natl Mtge (FNM)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/housing/" rel="tag">Housing</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p>Few would deny that the new U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, will face a plethora of concerns and problems after reciting the oath of office in January 2009. <br /><br />One issue that sort of presents the 'problems panorama' in a snapshot has, curiously, received light news coverage lately -- is the U.S. budget deficit. <br /><br />Time was, just a short decade ago, the federal budget was in surplus. However, in 2001 a federal tax cut occurred. That fact, combined with required spending for the war on terror / Iraq War, and the absence of a tax increase to pay for that increased spending, has primarily led to a projected $553 billion deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, and a $403 billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, according to <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9015/Selected_Tables.pdf">Congressional Budget Office research</a> (pdf).<br /><br /><strong>Three factors that could balloon the deficit</strong><br /><br />In the view of many, the existing deficit is large -- but still manageable -- in the context of a $2.9-3.0 trillion federal budget. However, three factors could markedly increase the budget deficit in the immediate years ahead, and in doing so add to the new president's woes, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks.<br /><br />First, there's the U.S. economy. If it falls into a recession (if it hasn't already), federal receipts (such as corporate and individual income taxes) will decline from current projected levels, and social program costs will increase, "adding $20-$50 billion to the deficit," Felson said.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Recession, housing seen increasing budget deficit for new president</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/">Recession, housing seen increasing budget deficit for new president</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:28:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1290186/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/20/recession-housing-seen-increasing-budget-deficit-for-new-presid/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>budget deficit</category><category>Fannie Mae</category><category>federal budget</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FNM</category><category>foreclosures</category><category>FRE</category><category>Freddie Mac</category><category>gdp</category><category>housing</category><category>housing bailout</category><category>inthenews</category><category>McCain</category><category>mortgages</category><category>national debt</category><category>Obama</category><category>taxes</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>U.S. Government</category><category>U.S. Treasury</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:28:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[A high U.S. budget deficit means higher taxes, prices, interest rates]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p>The lowdown on the high and rising U.S. budget deficit for investors and readers? A triple whammy: higher prices for imported goods, higher interest rates, and higher taxes, among other negative consequences. <br /><br />The budget deficit is expected to increase to $490 billion in Fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aZ4UCHX9tUbM">Bloomberg News reported Monday</a>. The increased shortfall is due to a worsening U.S. economy, which lowers government receipts, and spending increases for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the housing bailout, among other spending responsibilities.<br /><br />Increased spending to pay for the housing bailout, including assistance for <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/federal-national-mortgage-association/fnm/nys">Fannie Mae</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/federal-national-mortgage-association/fnm/nys">FNM</a>) and <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation/fre/nys">Freddie Mac</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/federal-home-loan-mortgage-corporation/fre/nys">FRE</a>) will further increase U.S. Government borrowing, and the supply of dollars, "which almost guarantees that the dollar will fall more," so says currency trader Andrew Resnick. As a result, companies exporting goods to the U.S. are likely to raise their prices, a cost increase Americans will feel keenly. <br /><br />However, Resnick said the dollar is likely to fall less, if the U.S. government increases taxes or the Fed increases short-term interest rates. <p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>A high U.S. budget deficit means higher taxes, prices, interest rates</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/">A high U.S. budget deficit means higher taxes, prices, interest rates</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1269616/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/29/a-high-u-s-budget-deficit-means-higher-taxes-prices-interest/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>budget deficit</category><category>consumer price index</category><category>cpi</category><category>Fed</category><category>federal spending</category><category>fiscal policy</category><category>gdp</category><category>housing</category><category>housing bailout</category><category>inflation</category><category>interest rates</category><category>inthenews</category><category>McCain</category><category>monetary policy</category><category>Obama</category><category>taxes</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>U.S. Federal Reserve</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Congressional Democrats talk up second economic stimulus package]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/industry/" rel="tag">Industry</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/recession/" rel="tag">Recession</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/04/cash-wad.jpg" alt="" />First the good news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy. <br /><br />Now the bad news: Congressional Democrats are talking up the idea of a second fiscal stimulus package to help jump start the U.S. economy.<br /><br />U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said she would raise the prospect of a second stimulus bill when she and other Congressional leaders meet with President Bush this week, <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/pelosi-citing-jobs-figures-pushes-bush-for-second-stimulus-bill/">CNN reported Monday.</a><br /><br /><strong>Anemic U.S. economy</strong><br /><br />Speaker Pelosi did not provide specifics but said March 2008's "disturbing unemployment numbers" which indicated the nation's economy lost 80,000 jobs "compels the President to work with Congress on a second stimulus package to get our economy back on track, create jobs, and speed assistance to families struggling to make ends meet," <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/04/pelosi-citing-jobs-figures-pushes-bush-for-second-stimulus-bill/">CNN said.</a><br /><br />On Monday, the Bush Administration said it was too soon to talk about the need for a second economic stimulus package because the first one had not been fully implemented yet, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSWAT00925420080407">Reuters reported.</a><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Congressional Democrats talk up second economic stimulus package</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/">Congressional Democrats talk up second economic stimulus package</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:23:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1160909/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/08/congressional-democrats-talk-up-second-economic-stimulus-package/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Bush</category><category>Democrats</category><category>economic growth</category><category>featured</category><category>federal spending</category><category>fiscal stimulus</category><category>GDP</category><category>job creation</category><category>jobs</category><category>Pelosi</category><category>Republicans</category><category>taxes</category><category>U.S. Congress</category><category>U.S. economy</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:23:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Fund roads &amp; bridges NOT mad money stimulus]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/ge/" rel="tag">General Electric (GE)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/hd/" rel="tag">Home Depot (HD)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/scandals/" rel="tag">Scandals</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/cat/" rel="tag">Caterpillar (CAT)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/aa/" rel="tag">Alcoa Inc (AA)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bdk/" rel="tag">Black and Decker (BDK)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/low/" rel="tag">Lowe's Cos (LOW)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/x/" rel="tag">U.S. Steel (X)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/nue/" rel="tag">Nucor Corp (NUE)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rs/" rel="tag">Reliance Steel and Aluminum (RS)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/jci/" rel="tag">Johnson Controls (JCI)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/de/" rel="tag">Deere and Co (DE)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/hon/" rel="tag">Honeywell Intl (HON)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/utx/" rel="tag">United Technologies (UTX)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bhp/" rel="tag">BHP Billiton Ltd ADR (BHP)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rtp/" rel="tag">Rio Tinto plc ADS (RIO)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/fcx/" rel="tag">Freep't McMoRan Copper (FCX)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/commodities/" rel="tag">Commodities</a></p><p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" align="right" alt=""  src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2008/03/bridge.jpg" />It is alarming to me that the same people who screw up the economy (or stand by watching) are the ones that are now promoting the remedies. They have proven without a shadow of a doubt that this is not their strong suit. The proposed <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/29/economic.stimulus/">economic stimulus package</a> has bi-partisan support and calls for an estimated $156 billion of tax rebates ranging from $500 to $1,000 (+ $300 for each child) that might show up in May.</p>
<p>If we are going to add on to our already humungous joke of national debt, than I want to invest this capital in something that will bring a higher return on invested capital (ROIC) than the paltry one time <em>mad money</em>. That expenditure should be for national infrastructure projects like roadways, bridges, tunnels, and waterways.</p>
<p>We have all heard about the poor condition of our national infrastructure and the hundreds of billions of dollars of repair work and replacement that is desperately needed.</p>
<p>This alternative would bring visible results that every single person in the country would benefit from and improved linkages always stimulate economic growth. Road improvements even reduce fuel consumption by shortening routes and reducing friction both strategically and physically.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Fund roads &amp; bridges NOT mad money stimulus</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/">Fund roads &amp; bridges NOT mad money stimulus</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1125388/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/04/fund-roads-and-bridges-not-mad-money-stimulus/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>AA</category><category>BDK</category><category>BHP</category><category>CAT</category><category>CX</category><category>DE</category><category>economic stimulous package</category><category>EconomicStimulousPackage</category><category>FCX</category><category>Federal deficit</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FederalDeficit</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>GE</category><category>HD</category><category>JCI</category><category>JEC</category><category>Liber</category><category>NUE</category><category>Roads and bridges</category><category>RoadsAndBridges</category><category>RS</category><category>RTP</category><category>URS</category><category>UTX</category><category>X</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:43:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Taj Mahal's dollar refusal symbolic of greenback's rough 2007]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/international-markets/" rel="tag">International Markets</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/india/" rel="tag">India</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/11/dollarsign-at150-02blog.jpg" />What international transaction perhaps best symbolizes the U.S. dollar's rough year of 2007? <br /><br />Giddy British tourists with more money to spend in New York than, seemingly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump">Donald Trump</a>? <br /><br />How about an international attraction that won't take dollars? In November 2007, India's Taj Mahal, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_wonders_of_the_world#Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World">one of the seven wonders of the ancient world</a> and India's most popular shrine, announced it would no longer accept the dollar, citing the greenback's weak currency status, and accept only rupees, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&amp;sid=a4zLUifSh7pg&amp;refer=india">Bloomberg News reported Thursday. </a><br /><br />Since January 2001 or during the past six years the dollar has fallen about 55% against the euro, 35% against the British pound, and about 10% against the Japan's yen. On Thursday the <a href="http://www.forex.com">dollar</a> was mixed against the world's major currencies. The dollar gained 0.62 cents to $1.4320 against the <a href="http://www.forex.com">euro</a> and 1.50 cents to $1.9831 against the <a href="http://www.forex.com">British pound</a>, but fell 0.25 yen against Japan's <a href="http://www.forex.com">yen</a>.<br /><br />When a currency, such as the dollar, declines versus another currency, that means the purchasing power of those holding the dollar declines - - a sort of 'non-legislative' tax increase. It goes without saying that most citizens, and institutions, don't like to hold currencies that decline in purchasing power.<p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Taj Mahal's dollar refusal symbolic of greenback's rough 2007</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/">Taj Mahal's dollar refusal symbolic of greenback's rough 2007</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:19:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://Swiss franc>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1068128/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/20/taj-mahals-dollar-refusal-symbolic-of-greenbacks-rough-2007/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Asia</category><category>British pound</category><category>budget deficit</category><category>Bush Administration</category><category>consumer spending</category><category>dollar</category><category>euro</category><category>Europe</category><category>exports</category><category>featured</category><category>federal spending</category><category>GDP</category><category>imports</category><category>India</category><category>savings rate</category><category>Taj Mahal</category><category>taxes</category><category>trade deficit</category><category>U.S. Congress</category><category>U.S. dollar</category><category>U.S. economy</category><category>yen</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:19:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Fed cuts rates, dollar down, oil and gold up - who would have thunk it?!]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/forecasts/" rel="tag">Forecasts</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/consumer-experience/" rel="tag">Consumer Experience</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/annual-meetings/" rel="tag">Annual Meetings</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a></p><p>Gee whiz what a shock <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crude-hits-new-record-above/story.aspx?guid=%7BBF4BE17A%2D4051%2D4DA6%2DA1EF%2D8B7900AD3528%7D">Crude hits new record above $95 in after-hours trading</a> and other commodities will not be far behind. Can't wait to see what gold, sugar, and even water will cost as the dollar becomes more worthless. I have written <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/29/fed-meets-do-more-rate-cuts-equal-100-oil-apc-and-aauk-up-up-an/">many recent pleas to leave the rates alone</a> because it was fairly obvious what would happen if rates were cut yet again. In a 9 to 1 vote the <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/fed-cuts-rates-to-45-percent/20071031063909990001">Federal Reserve Board voted to cut rates</a> by a quarter point to 4.5%.</p>
<p>Only Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City opposed the increase. He preferred no change in the funds rate. Let's make him chairman of the board. Better yet, maybe he would make a good write-in candidate for president. I wonder what he thinks of federal spending, the war in Iraq, health care, education -- He has certainly peaked my interest and I do not know him at all, but he has made a good impression so far.</p>
<p>In Europe the Dollar is falling, while gold passes $800. Where will it all end? It cannot end well if nobody wants to "pay the piper". When you consider the reasoning behind the Feds rate cut you have to be concerned. <strong><em>The rationale behind the cuts is that the lower borrowing costs will induce consumers and businesses to boost spending, energizing economic growth.</em></strong></p>
<p> </p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Fed cuts rates, dollar down, oil and gold up - who would have thunk it?!</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/">Fed cuts rates, dollar down, oil and gold up - who would have thunk it?!</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crude-hits-new-record-above/story.aspx?guid=%7BBF4BE17A%2D4051%2D4DA6%2DA1EF%2D8B7900AD3528%7D>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1026812/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/31/fed-cuts-rates-dollar-down-oil-and-gold-up-who-would-have/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>federal reserve</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FederalReserve</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>interest rates</category><category>InterestRates</category><category>inthenews</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Sunday Funnies: Alaska abandons infamous 'bridge to nowhere']]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/press-releases/" rel="tag">Press Releases</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/scandals/" rel="tag">Scandals</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/sunday-funnies/" rel="tag">Sunday Funnies</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/headline-news/" rel="tag">Headline News</a></p><p>This one obviously became <em><strong>"A Bridge Too Far" fetched</strong>,</em> as <font color="#2864b4"><a href="http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=3908">Alaska Abandons Infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere'</a></font> included in last year's budget as part of the traditional pork-barrel spending that goes on in Washington -- usually following long speeches about trimming the fat.</p>
<p>There is probably nothing more universally consistent in a campaign speech than the promise to cut federal spending. Of course politicians are equally consistent on failing to do so once they are in office. However, in the case of this infamous bridge to an Island of a few hundred residences, the political heat, under the proverbial magnifying glass, was too much.</p>
<p>The public outrage and direct lobbying from various budget watchdog groups and with the support of Senator Tom Coburn, Representative Jeff Flake, and Representative Mark Kirk, the State of Alaska has officially abandoned plans to pursue the infamous Gravina Bridge. Money is still earmarked for the state, but the recently elected new governor decided to drop the project.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Sunday Funnies: Alaska abandons infamous 'bridge to nowhere'</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/">Sunday Funnies: Alaska abandons infamous 'bridge to nowhere'</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:00:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/996144/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/28/sunday-funnies-alaska-abandons-infamous-bridge-to-nowhere/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>A bridge to far</category><category>ABridgeToFar</category><category>Alaskan bridge to nowhere</category><category>AlaskanBridgeToNowhere</category><category>Federal Spending</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>Gravina Bridge</category><category>GravinaBridge</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><category>Sunday Funnies</category><category>SundayFunnies</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[FedEx &amp; UPS are not celebrating Bernanke's worried rate cuts - should you?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/major-movement/" rel="tag">Major Movement</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/bad-news/" rel="tag">Bad News</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/marketmatters/" rel="tag">Market Matters</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/fdx/" rel="tag">FedEx Corp (FDX)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/ups/" rel="tag">United Parcel'B' (UPS)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/economic-data/" rel="tag">Economic Data</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/federal-reserve/" rel="tag">Federal Reserve</a></p><p>Wall Street and its scoreboard stock exchanges are jubilant with the 0.5% cut in the prime rate. But all is not well. As expected, gold and oil hit record highs on the news yesterday and the sky's the limit. The dollar will be losing value and foreign investors will be buying increasing amounts of our equities, including land, buildings, public and private companies. Expect American ownership to decrease. <br /> </p>
<p>The fact that the Federal Reserve sought to pacify investment bankers and individuals who made bad deals in an effort to shore up what was starting to look like big trouble in the "heartland" is not, I think, worthy of celebration. Yes, we should be grateful that Ben Bernanke and crew are keeping a watchful eye on the pulse of the economy and did not wait until we drowned to throw in a lifeline. But for this conservative group to make the cut they had to think things were bad, and that is not exactly heartening news.<br /></p>
<p>Transportation stocks are not doing well this morning, and neither are delivery companies. <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/fedex-corporation/fdx/nys">FedEx Corp</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/fedex-corporation/fdx/nys">FDX</a>) and <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/united-parcel-service-cl-b/ups/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">United Parcel Service</a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/united-parcel-service-cl-b/ups/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">UPS</a>) are showing losses or treading water, even though the overall market is notably up. Why? Fuel costs. <br /></p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>FedEx &amp; UPS are not celebrating Bernanke's worried rate cuts - should you?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/">FedEx &amp; UPS are not celebrating Bernanke's worried rate cuts - should you?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:20:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/993366/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/09/19/fedex-and-ups-are-not-celebrating-bernankes-worried-rate-cuts-s/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Ben Bernanke</category><category>BenBernanke</category><category>consumer spending</category><category>ConsumerSpending</category><category>energy costs</category><category>EnergyCosts</category><category>Federal Reserve</category><category>federal spending</category><category>FederalReserve</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>FedEx Corp (FDX)</category><category>FedexCorp(fdx)</category><category>Interest rates</category><category>InterestRates</category><category>inthenews</category><category>prime rate</category><category>PrimeRate</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><category>transportaion</category><category>United Parcel'B' (UPS)</category><category>UnitedParcel'b'(ups)</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:20:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Bush makes his money speech &amp; so does Frank Deford, who's listening?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/management/" rel="tag">Management</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/rants-and-raves/" rel="tag">Rants and Raves</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/competitive-strategy/" rel="tag">Competitive Strategy</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/columns/" rel="tag">Columns</a></p><p>We heard a lot of nice sentiment from President Bush Tuesday night but, alas, it is another case of too little, too late. (Or... is it never too late?) It would be great if the $18 billion in "pork barrel" spending he mentioned is really cut by restricting the ease with which our legislature can attach its pet projects to entirely unrelated bills under the cover of darkness. This is the equivalent of about seven weeks of spending on the Iraq war, <em>at current levels.</em></p>
<p>It also begs the question as to what the administration was thinking until now, as we spent perhaps $100 to $120 billion during his watch on an abundance of special projects. If we give the President and his team credit for on-the-job-training the first year, even though every candidate makes cutting government spending a part of his platform, the administration should still have done something earlier, especially <em>with Republicans steering this ship!</em> This is very embarrassing <em>-- and shameful!</em></p>
<p>It makes me think the attitude in Washington was that 'the Democrats got theirs, now we're going to get ours'.</p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Bush makes his money speech &amp; so does Frank Deford, who's listening?</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/">Bush makes his money speech &amp; so does Frank Deford, who's listening?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:10:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/741603/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/01/24/bush-makes-his-money-speech-and-so-does-frank-deford-whos-listen/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>bush</category><category>Bush Speech</category><category>BushSpeech</category><category>Federal Budgets</category><category>Federal Spending</category><category>FederalBudgets</category><category>FederalSpending</category><category>George W. Bush</category><category>GeorgeW.Bush</category><category>Goverment waste</category><category>GovermentWaste</category><category>Iraq</category><category>President Bush</category><category>PresidentBush</category><category>Sheldon Liber</category><category>SheldonLiber</category><category>state of the union</category><category>StateOfTheUnion</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheldon Liber]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:10:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
