House Democrats Propose $825 Billion Stimulus Bill

[85suited 0]

Will President Obama Keep His Word on ‘Stimulus’ Transparency, or Was That Just Another ‘Ethics’ Lie? Jeff EmanuelFriday, February 13th at 9:37PM EST We’ve already seen House Democrats unanimously approve, and then completely ignore, a resolution calling for the $800 billion so-called “stimulus” bill to be made available in final form to the American public for 48 hours before a final vote was taken on it. The American people ended up getting no time, and Congress itself only got ten hours — from 11pm Thursday night, when the conference report was released, until 9am, when floor action commenced — to review the 1,073-page final document.Now, the ball of “keeping your word on transparency” is in President Obama’s court. During his campaign, Obama promised that he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” PolitiFact.com, which is keeping track of Obama’s action on over 500 campaign promises, has already moved this one to the “promise broken” column because, well, he directly violated that claim on the first two bills he signed after taking office.Here’s another chance to live up to your word, President Obama. How about it? Do you have a shred of integrity in your body somewhere?

[strategy 4]

You have missed the entire point... I watched them defend every position of BHO during the election season, and now rarely see them defend a position or event that has taken place so far...

I didn't miss your point, I just chose not to address it. I assume these people have real life reasons for why they don't waste time trying to convince you of their worldview. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say on the situation, too.

[85suited 0]

Do you think this is a good bill?Do you think it is an unreasonable request to "read" the bill before voting?Are you not concerned that every time BHO or Congress writes policy, they dont live up to it? (transparency FTW)

[strategy 4]

Do you think this is a good bill?Do you think it is an unreasonable request to "read" the bill before voting?Are you not concerned that every time BHO or Congress writes policy, they dont live up to it? (transparency FTW)

I think this kind of spending on infrastructure is long overdue. it's unfortunate that they can only seem to get it done at the worst possible time.preaching to the choir. the amount of freedom that can be clipped with subtle wording in a rider is just unbelievable. I think people on both sides find it ridiculous, but often only when they're the ones being trampled.it is too early to write him off. I personally think the geithner fumble wasn't really such a huge deal. the amount lost in wall street wasn't that huge when you consider that it was just gains from obama's speech the week before. I actually had some skin in the game (class portfolio heavy on financials) and was lucky enough to have it end before timmay's speech.but don't label me the forum's liberal business major. I am at worst a mealy-mouthed fence-sitter.

[navybuttons 15]

Do you have a shred of integrity in your body somewhere?

WOW. he's just a man.as an obama supporter (i gave money but didn't vote) before the campaign i'm waiting for real world results before i pass judgment. Did you write him off before he was in office?

[grimtaash 0]

Well, I went out and got good and drunk tonight after this passed the senate. I pray to God this "stimulus" bill works. I worry that even if it works it's too expensive. I hate to even think of how much the next "stimulus" will cost if/when this one doesn't work.

[Loismustdie 0]

i think powerless is the wrong word. i see those on government assistance including the disabled, the elderly, and low-income single mothers, as having the same right to air, food, and vote as anyone else.my understanding was that by increasing government spending it will create work for the private sector. is this not the case?in poker money flows up. no matter how much money guy la liaberte donates there's little chance of that money ever coming to a low or mid-stakes player because that generally goes into the life-roll of the high stakes players (cars, houses, invest, whatever).i can't imagine that a larger economy would work any different. so even if you give money to those at the bottom of the economic scale it'll still get to the wealthy.i don't mean to imply that i believe in higher taxes. but as i understand it, obama plans to keep bush's tax but in place. i suppose i have a problem relating to your doom and gloom in this regard. any thoughts to help me understand?i view the internet, and the general population being better connected as going a long way with small ball health care. you're presupposing that government having a larger hand in health care will kill the private sector. no?i lose you here. it seems to me your party bias prevents you from giving an honest opinion, with rationale, that i can be persuaded to.this seems paradoxical to me. i think i get what you are trying to say, but you can't sell me on the idea that everyone being born with the same opportunities is the polar opposite of the american dream.

I am terrible at the quoting/requoting so I will just give you answers in order: Powerless is the correct word in that it means "powerless to ever get into a position where they could be self sufficient." I don't mean those that cannot care for themselves, I mean those that can and don't because it pays enough not to, and now that's just going to get worse. Now, think of it this way- they do have a voice, and they believe that you are the one that cares about them. How diabolical is it when you do things that explicitly keep them in your pocket, and they will never know unless they happen to become self sufficient? No. If it did, businesses would not be laying off. Companies hire for future business and layoff for certain slow periods. Working in the stock market I can tell you that this is one of the first things companies do that is actually public record and they are loathe to do it. Put it this way- if businesses believed this was actually stimulating to the tune of million jobs they would be hiring, like, now. Money does both in the economy. Businesses create jobs, they pay the little people, who use that money to buy what businesses make, and the cycle continues. In that mix, the government takes from everybody, some very little some more. Once you start taxing the top to much, on a personal and corporate level, money starts never even taking that first step to the little people, because corporations stop hiring. Now, that taxation can come in the form of outright taxes or over regulation, but the point is the easier and cheaper it is to do business the more jobs there will be. The harder it is the less, and worst of all the company might just up and leave altogether. As far as the Bush tax cuts,he has always said that he would not reinstate them. This is one of those time when he gets tricky with his wording- not so tricky that anyone not enthralled wont catch it, of course. The electronic records is one thing, what they will be expressly used for is another. The bill actually talks about monitoring doctors decision to make sure they are cost effective, and much, much more. Henry posted a link about that in the healthcare thread. My party is what it is, but I can honestly tell you this- if this administration was doing well I would be the first to say it, quickly and loudly. It's not. It's possible that it couldn't be any worse. My point earlier still stands- this bill was done quicker and easier than Obamas decision on what kind of dog to buy. 1 trillion dollars. He is literally putting more thought into a ****ing dog. Doesn't that seem ****ed up to you? Does it make any sense to claim that people back his thought process than tour the nation to sell his wares? He knows the public doesn't support this. They know it, the ratio of calls to representatives was 10 to 1 in favor of not doing this. Our leadership is willfully doing the exact opposite of the will of the people. At least when Bush went to war he initially had our support. Equality is one thing, but what is being attempted here is equality by bringing down another, which lifts no one, but it will grow government. You will keep others where they are at the bottom, and those who had the drive to rise up will think twice when they see what those up top go through just to be there. Liberals want to punish success, nothing more nothing less, and they use the template that it's just to "be fair". Answer this question: If I told you that your life would not improve,and whats more could not improve,but the rich fatcats would pay 40% more in taxes would you be happy? You probably would not- in a poll that was done like 60+ percent said they would feel better. Why is that? That makes no sense to feel that way, the rich, companies, generate money that ends up paying you or someone you know. That answers all the questions best I can, but I guess if I had to say one thing to try and convince you it's look at what's being sold, and how it's being sold.Now, the look part is tough when they give little to no time to do so- this leads into the how. So,looking is tough. Now, when looking has been done it has been legitimately derided as a a bill that roughly 14% of it will be stimulating, and the rest is just Dem pet projects. Now, this has been covered, and when brought to the attention of the president he says things like "Of course it's a spending bill, that's what stimulates the economy" which of course is not true- it was supposed to be a jobs bill, and the people could spend. Instead it will be spent as government sees fit. This will of course create jobs but no one can actually say how many. Of course, that didn't stop him-"this bill will create or save 4 million jobs." Never mind that it's just pulled out of his ass, it say nothing. Potentially that means if I still have a job in a year Obama can take credit. Can anyone quantify the outrage that the press would be unleashing if Bush or McCain created a bill that was supposed to be jobs based but instead was loaded with republican pet projects? You would hear 24/7 coverage about what a crock it was, and rightfully so. Now, the little coverage you do hear is publicly derided as lies- see Obama calling out Limbaugh, which actually increased Limbaughs ratings-and followed by increased talk of a new version of the fairness doctrine, which basically states that equal time must be given to liberal radio, ratings and funds be damned. Of course, the people don't want that, if they did, liberal radio talk shows would do much better- they don't, for a myriad of reasons, so what would basically happen is some conservative radio would be forced out to make way for that which the public never wanted based on "fairness." At some point I just have to laugh at the craziness I guess, but not because it's funny, out of sheer exhaustion.

[BigLebowski 0]

Did you write him off before he was in office?

Is that rhetorical? It was pretty obvious the conservative base of this forum wrote Obama off long before he was elected. Much like like the liberals would have done to McCain. However, there are a few of us who are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but he is not off to a good start imo.

[Loismustdie 0]

You have missed the entire point... I watched them defend every position of BHO during the election season, and now rarely see them defend a position or event that has taken place so far...

I believe it's just them taking a cue from Obama- he believes he does not have to because he won the election. They believe they are now above justification.

[Loismustdie 0]

Is that rhetorical? It was pretty obvious the conservative base of this forum wrote Obama off long before he was elected. Much like like the liberals would have done to McCain. However, there are a few of us who are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but he is not off to a good start imo.

That's the thing. He makes a good decision I will praise him. It hasn't been good so far.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Is that rhetorical? It was pretty obvious the conservative base of this forum wrote Obama off long before he was elected. Much like like the liberals would have done to McCain. However, there are a few of us who are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but he is not off to a good start imo.

god I'm drunk, and we've been talking about this all night and it's been pissing me off to no end. but when he made the inauguration speech, man, i really wanted to like him. I thought he sounded genuine. and when he made his first promises, you know, transpanrency, alll that jive, I was optimistic. but jesus h christ, he's broken every god damn promise he's made. it's just baffling, I mean NOBODY"s called him on it. it's just, oh ok, baraks goonna save the world! lets watch! no, he ****ing isn't, and he's using the same old school bullshit politics to use it. my opinion of the man went from a 96 to a 17 really, really ****ing quick. god damn it. good luck to everybody in the next ten years. your gonna need it.

[Loismustdie 0]

god I'm drunk, and we've been talking about this all night and it's been pissing me off to no end. but when he made the inauguration speech, man, i really wanted to like him. I thought he sounded genuine. and when he made his first promises, you know, transpanrency, alll that jive, I was optimistic. but jesus h christ, he's broken every god damn promise he's made. it's just baffling, I mean NOBODY"s called him on it. it's just, oh ok, baraks goonna save the world! lets watch! no, he ****ing isn't, and he's using the same old school bullshit politics to use it. my opinion of the man went from a 96 to a 17 really, really ****ing quick. god damn it. good luck to everybody in the next ten years. your gonna need it.

I liken it to voters going all in with the nuts but then getting two outed, only the dealer has the T.V. tell you you haven't really been two outed, Rush Limbaugh is a liar.

[BigLebowski 0]

good luck to everybody in the next ten years. your gonna need it.

Do you seriously think it will be all his fault? That is not even close to the truth. Do you honestly think McCain could have solved this problem? The republican mantra of tax cuts isn't going to do shit for our problems. They are just as guilty as anyone for our borrow and spend policies. Throwing Obama under the bus for all of the future problems is simply not fair. Bash him for doing what politicians do best, but it is fairly premature to blame him for all of the future problems.Drunkaments ftw?

[Loismustdie 0]

Do you seriously think it will be all his fault? That is not even close to the truth. Do you honestly think McCain could have solved this problem? The republican mantra of tax cuts isn't going to do shit for our problems. They are just as guilty as anyone for our borrow and spend policies. Throwing Obama under the bus for all of the future problems is simply not fair. Bash him for doing what politicians do best, but it is fairly premature to blame him for all of the future problems.Drunkaments ftw?

Those who say tax cuts would not help just don't understand money, or hate it immensely at best. There is no other way to put it. You're horribly wrong on this, horribly wrong.

[navybuttons 15]

How diabolical is it when you do things that explicitly keep them in your pocket, and they will never know unless they happen to become self sufficient?

how will i know when i'm exploiting them if they seem to like it?

If I told you that your life would not improve,and whats more could not improve,but the rich fatcats would pay 40% more in taxes would you be happy? You probably would not- in a poll that was done like 60+ percent said they would feel better.

i think that's to their discredit.i don't feel at war with them.

That answers all the questions best I can

thank you, i really do appreciate it.

Now, the little coverage you do hear is publicly derided as lies

now right around here is where i tune out.

At some point I just have to laugh at the craziness I guess.

At all points I just have to laugh at the craziness. I'm not sure what that says about my mental state.

[grimtaash 0]

Oh, and drunker point now. I agree that McCain/republicans, whatever, would probably not do much to help the current economy. But I truly believe that the government has a lot less influence on the economy than most people think. I DO feel that one thing the govenment should pay VERY close attention to with its policies is inflation. And I have a feeling that in the near future we're gonna see some serious inflation problems. Hope I'm wrong, but when you take on this much debt with no plan for dealing with it in the future......

[strategy's_touch 0]

I too would like to drunkenly complain about the fate of our great nation

[Sal Paradise 57]

Do you seriously think it will be all his fault? That is not even close to the truth. Do you honestly think McCain could have solved this problem? The republican mantra of tax cuts isn't going to do shit for our problems. They are just as guilty as anyone for our borrow and spend policies. Throwing Obama under the bus for all of the future problems is simply not fair. Bash him for doing what politicians do best, but it is fairly premature to blame him for all of the future problems.Drunkaments ftw?

no a lot of the blame can go to pelosi and reid and the rest of the leadership for coming up the idea of the massive spending bill and pushing it through, and some of it can be spread out to every congressman and senator who voted for it without even reading it, and a lot of it can go to the millions of americans who "just can't make it anymore" (boohoo) so they just have to have the government take care of them now so they look to the messiah, but really it does all boil down to his fault for dragging the depression out 10 to 15 years which this sham of a bill will do. and no of course the republicans wouldn't have done any better; they're just as much in the pockets of special interest groups that all want money as the dems, there just would have been different bull shit than this one. they're both the parties of big government and irresponsible spending, that's the way it's become. i guess it really boils down to the fact that we've reached a crescendo on the number of people that think they are somehow owed something for just being alive and that the government should provide whatever it is they are owed to them for nothing, and that anybody who is wealthier than them is just greedy and doesn't deserve their money. I think we need to institute mandatory economics classes for everybody in the country. hell, you could even teach that keynesian bullshit as long as people learn the basics so they can actually think for themselves. but basically, no, it isn't all his fault, but he is the ringleader and he is the one that was most vocal about the "change" that was obviously nothing but pure fluff and lies.

I too would like to drunkenly complain about the fate of our great nation

I woke up this morning (strangely without much of a hangover) and immediately felt uneasy when I remembered my drunken rant. how embarrassing.

[hblask 1]

I think this kind of spending on infrastructure is long overdue.

If this bill had anything to do with infrastructure, at least it would be defensible. Go look up the percentage of the bill that, by any stretch of the language, can be called infrastructure.The number I heard is 7%. What about the other 93%?

[hblask 1]

Anyone who thinks I am blindly partisan should read the Obama scorecard thread I started. During his first week he got nothing but positive marks from me, and for the most part his cabinet choices were acceptable (except for Daschle, who got his Medical Destruction Act pushed through anyway).So I can say I hoped Obama would be good, and I was willing to give him a shot, but if he continues at his current pace, he will be the worst or second worst president ever, even behind Bush. And that's tough to do.This bill is pure wealth destruction. It is the political equivalent of spending tax dollars on digging holes and filling them in. Nobody seems willing to defend any particular piece of it, but those with political blinders are willing to defend it as a whole, as if adding a bunch of negative numbers together will give you a positive number.The one good thing that could come out of it is when inflation and unemployment simultaneously reach double digits a year or two from now, Keynsian economics will be dead and gone once and for all. It will take a generation to repair all the damage done from this bill and the new ones Obama is threatening to push through, but at least the evidence will be irrefutable.

[85suited 0]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 equals 5.7% of America’s Gross Domestic Product (GPD), whereas President Roosevelt’s New Deal, at its height of fiscally irresponsible, equaled approximately 2%. The gross spending called for by bill – mandated by Congressional Democrats and President Obama – is equal to or larger than the GDP of 157 nations – all but 14 countries listed in the International Monetary Fund’s database for 2007. Among those countries dwarfed by the unprecedented spending are United Arab Emirates, Dominican Republic, Iran, Taiwan, and Israel

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Wow, conservatives are getting really cranky in this thread.I support the bill. I don't have time now to give a large defensive speech in favor and I certainly don't have time to counter every criticism in this thread since it's becoming more of a yell off than a discussion.The bill, which is supported by the majority of economists, will create wealth by getting people working. If employment in the private sector were 100% or near that then yes, Henry, I agree, it would be bad for the government to take people's money and force people out of their jobs to work for the government's agenda. That's not the situation now. Unemployment is high. So, resources (ie people) are not being used to their fullest extent and are not creating wealth at their fullest potential. Furthermore, banks aren't lending at a necessary rate. This again means that people who want to create wealth by building companies, factories, or what not are not able to at their fullest capacity. The current policy (TARP and stimulus) are about remedying these two problems and allowing people to create wealth.Yes, it is not the government that creates wealth, it's the people. The goal that the government has now is to create a liquidity both in jobs and credit that will allow competition and market forces to move people around such that they are allocated in a maximal way. We want an economy that is able to flow and change. In the limit of a fully mailable economy, market forces will ensure that people are put in the right jobs and companies that are good enough to grow are able to, etc etc. But this is not the case. So the government is going to make a temporary influx of money into the market at the expense of payment later with interest. Tax cuts are a major part of this plan. They, of course, allow people to keep their money directly without funneling it through the federal government. But they are not targeted enough and will alone not create the influx of money into the market that we need. A more targeted method is by extending and supporting, temporarily, welfare and medicaid. This gives money to the people who are at most in need, those who are unemployed, and will enable those who are recently unemployed to mantain their lives through this hard time and will allow them to survive long enough to reclaim their jobs when the market again deems their resources precious (rather, it could be the case that their skills are indeed needed but they were fired not as a fault of their own but rather as the result of greater forces, ie a company failing or a massive layoff that could fire people at a first in last out basis).Building infrastructure creates jobs and also, in the long term, helps the country work better. I think there are very few people who believe that our roads, highways, power grid, water, and internet systems need some help in order to once again unequivocally claim to be the best in the world. That should be our goal.One of the most important parts of the bill, in my eyes, is the massive aid to education that our country so desperately needs. In order to continue to compete in the 21st century and in order to attract the best and brightest from other countries and recruit them to our own (yes, immigration is a very important reason for why our country is so great), we will need to really improve our schools.Anyway, I could go on and on, I just wanted to show that us liberals are still alive and breathing.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The one good thing that could come out of it is when inflation and unemployment simultaneously reach double digits a year or two from now, Keynsian economics will be dead and gone once and for all. It will take a generation to repair all the damage done from this bill and the new ones Obama is threatening to push through, but at least the evidence will be irrefutable.

If the opposite happens and the economy turns around, will you abandon your economic philosophy and becomes a Keynesian liberal?If your answer is no, than your above statement is invalid.

[hblask 1]

The bill, which is supported by the majority of economists,

This is The Big Lie. It's just plain false. Most economists think it is pure economic folly.Maybe a majority of economists who were selected to support the bill support it, but even that is questionable. They probably just like power more than principles.

[hblask 1]

One of the most important parts of the bill, in my eyes, is the massive aid to education that our country so desperately needs.

Federal education funding has been a disaster for our education system. If you graphed federal spending per capita vs standing in the world, the two lines go in opposite directions.Taking money from parents, who care about their kids, shipping it thousands of miles away, and having a small part of it come back with strings attached is a HUGE part of the education crisis in the US.If the federal government wanted to help education, they would close the department of education and let parents decide the best way to educate their kids.