The Federal Reserve Bank, and FDIC are both governmental, NOT PRIVATE entities, created by the Congress with board members appointed by the President. If you do a search of them on the internet you will find their websites which will give you FACTUAL information. As with a lot of conspiracy theories there may well be some crazy misinformation out there, but be very suspicious about anybody who tries to sell you a bill of goods. Your posts were probably taken off because they were just plain wrong.

Tony, I can't imagine what it has been, and is, like for you. I do know that you, better than most, understand how vulnerable we all are, whether we realize it or not, and that you have survived when many haven't. I also know that while the next stage requires profound courage, grace, and understanding, which all may seem in short supply to you right now, a few rare souls have been able to move beyond even that to become someone that they could not have been without their pain - thrivers. I hope that state of being lies in your path, because, in the midst of all else, it can yield peace, serenity, and boundless hope that is truly yours, not the gift of someone else, and thereby of inestimable value. I wish you well.
Dave

There's an old saying, "if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem." I know it's been overused but it's still true. Further, if we all wait for someone else to take responsibility, we shouldn't be surprised if nobody does. I believe that I bear a disproportionate share of the responsibility for the damage that's been done round the world the past 8 years, because I didn't do what I could to either speak up, or more importantly, suggest alternatives or provide constructive criticism. I'm becoming more involved now, for whatever reason, and that involves providing what I hope are constructive insights and ideas, and encouraging others to do the same (sorry about the sermon, the preacher in me is taking a long time to die a much needed and deserved death).

I am confident that this plan will help, if it can be implemented promptly, in the sense that money gets into circulation beyond the primary, and perhaps even secondary level promptly. Shovel ready projects help that and have the advantage of being spread throughout the country, with an immediate impact at the local level.
Supporting local government is critical also, more for retaining than creating jobs. In that case though, I hope that factoring in the economic stimulus' effect on increasing local government revenues leads the plan to not go overboard in throwing money at local government. Perhaps a matching fund arrangement could help leverage that kind of effort to maximum effect while also tempering the temptation to throw a lot of money that way.
I'm not quite as sure of the value of tax cuts, nor rebates, for that matter (although I recognize that there may be a political component there), but if there's reason to believe that either of those approaches would provide a psychological stabilizing effect, I could see some value in that, if only to buy some time until some of the impact of the other measures take place.
The green part of it can work, again especially to the extent that it is able to come on stream quickly. Weatherization programs can likely absorb enough resources that can likely be put onto the street rapidly.
Health care expansion can probably have more of a psychological impact than immediate stimulus, I would suspect, but that's not necessarily bad, and serves as a segue to my belief that it may be of value to essentially provide a structured tier level of stimulus, which is timed to increase momentum in the impact of the stimulus by starting with "shovel-ready" type measures which quickly move money onto the street, followed soon on by measures which are timed to come on line a bit later because of the need for more lead time, followed by a third tier which is timed a bit later than the second, again because of the greater lead time involved.
This approach has both practical and morale advantages. This is, after all, as much a psychological endeavor as a fiscal and/or financial one.

So what do you suggest?

So what do you suggest?

Paul, I can appreciate how you're struggling with this issue. Something that has helped me in both my professional and my personal lifves has been an ability (all too seldom, I'm afraid) to sometimes challenge my perspective on things. In a case like this, when I encounter a behavior which seems inconsistent with what I know about a person, granted, there is a temptation to not only be disappointed, but to pull away, at least emotionally. One of the approaches I have found useful in such situations is to ask myself, "If, in fact, I was accurate in my original estimate of this person, how can I understand this new behavior in a way that makes it consistent with my original understanding of who this person is?" When I look at President-Elect Obama, I have been struck by a number of things, including that he appears to be thoughtful, level-headed, sincere, sensitive, open, and accepting, and a whole lot of other facets that I value and admire. So, when I come up with something like the Warren invitation, which, on its face, strikes a dissonant chord, I have to step back and ask myself, is there another way of looking at this which makes sense, but is still consistent with whatever else I understand about President-Elect Obama?
I'm not sure that I have as much confidence in the future path of Mr. Warren as Terry does, but If Obama is doing what I believe he is, namely reaching out to those who he has good reason to despise, because he understands that the only way to get them to listen to him is to rise above his disapproval of their actions, respect them as human beings, and let them know that he is prepared to listen to them. I can believe in the soundness of that approach because I've seen it work so many times, whether it was Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. (since I'm an atheist, people may wonder why, but I can cite JC too), or more prosaically, but just as dramatically, in my work with victimizers who, when they first come to me, genuinely believe they are the victims. It doesn't always work, but it does more often than not, and can be truly transformative. After all, if our number one complaint is "nobody listens to me!!" why should we believe that isn't the number one complaint of others as well. And who am I most willing to listen to? Those who will listen to me.
Good luck.

Paul, At the top of this page is a Jobs tab. Perhaps you should consider applying for one in this administration. It's easy to do, and sounds like you've got some good ideas and expertise.

Terry, I'm extraordinarilyy impressed with the profound shift in your perspective. In my work as a psychotherapist one of my primary goals is always to help my clients learn how to challenge their own perspective. When they become able to seriously consider the points of view of others they are better able to get out of the rut they are in and transform their lives. Whatever you're taking, i would like you to bottle it. Others (including Mr. Warren, and almost certainly myself) could use some of it. Would I be correct in suspecting that your artist's eye helps you with this?

We would all do well to remember that injustice seems less immediate when it doesn't directly affect us. Thank you for reminding me that simply because my life is going relatively easily doesn't mean that injustice perpetrated in my name is not causing profound pain in others. I believe that this barrier will fall, but recognize that it can't fall soon enough for you.