House passes $819 billion stimulus bill

[b3rtstare]

Look, infinite money

LOL, reps for making me laugh. Sad to say though. The government really thinks we have infinite money.

[edible_eye]

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus...o_stimulus.pdf

...

[dbx]

Sad to say though. The government really thinks we have infinite money.

What, we don't?

[Stizzel]

What, we don't?

Actually, we do have unlimited money. What we don't have is unlimited wealth.

[ElMariachi]

if the republicans had this attitude all along they wouldnt have lost so bad last time around. Unfortunately they are equally spend happy when they are in control.

Some quick highlights of the bill

$400 million global warming research
$2.4 mil for carbon capture programs??
$650mill for digital tv coupons
$1billion to amtrack (hasnt been profitable in decades)

Tack on another 5 billion dollars for ACORN.

[dbx]

Actually, we do have unlimited money. What we don't have is unlimited wealth.

Well, if the first statement were really true, the second statement wouldn't be. But yeah, I get your point .

[dbx]

Tack on another 5 billion dollars for ACORN.

Well, that's simply payback (including back pay from waaay back).

[Enso]

GOOD! Can't call it a bi-partisan failure. Only one party will get the blame. Too bad Republicans didn't have this same mindset between 2000 and 2006.

And if it does work...

[Flashbax]

Well, if the first statement were really true, the second statement wouldn't be. But yeah, I get your point .

wealth does not necessarily mean paper money.

[nutsy54]

Hey Grup, exactly where is the "Bipartisan" approach that you were supporting just a few hours ago in another thread? Where is the new "transparency in government", as a 600+ page bill is rammed through Congress in hours?

Hint: It's not "Bipartisan" to have a meeting, accept nothing the other side has to offer, delete one high-profile line item that accounts for 0.02% of total spending, and then railroad it through with a purely partisan vote (oops, except that 11 Democrats also believed this bill wasn't worth passing).

$820,000,000,000 in blatantly pork-filled spending. Exactly the opposite of the "fiscal responsibility" promised by President Obama. I wonder if he'll keep his word and Veto this bill when it reaches his desk. . .

The President's Plan, from his own web site:

Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama and Biden believe that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified.

End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama and Biden will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense.

Against Raising the Federal Debt Limit: In 2006, Obama voted against misguided Republican efforts to raise the statutory debt limit...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Where are all the Obama supporters, to tell us why his blatant violation of his own core campaign promises, within a week of taking office, can be considered "Good"?

[Daegus]

I want to know where all these Republicans that voted no were the last 8 years.
When one party is in power they rubber stamp everything while the other side goes kicking and screaming. What a joke our political system is.

I got a solution: TERM LIMITS!

[edible_eye]

Well, that's simply payback (including back pay from waaay back).

Payback?

It's payback for registering people who don't exist to vote for Obama as well as offering cigarettes, sandwiches and a ride to the homeless so they vote for Obama.

That's a helluva payback - and it's 4.1 billion... with a B.

[Stizzel]

Hey Grup, exactly where is the "Bipartisan" approach that you were supporting just a few hours ago in another thread? Where is the new "transparency in government", as a 600+ page bill is rammed through Congress in hours?

Hint: It's not "Bipartisan" to have a meeting, accept nothing the other side has to offer, delete one high-profile line item that accounts for 0.02% of total spending, and then railroad it through with a purely partisan vote (oops, except that 11 Democrats also believed this bill wasn't worth passing).

$820,000,000,000 in blatantly pork-filled spending. Exactly the opposite of the "fiscal responsibility" promised by President Obama. I wonder if he'll keep his word and Veto this bill when it reaches his desk. . .

The President's Plan, from his own web site:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

Where are all the Obama supporters, to tell us why his blatant violation of his own core campaign promises, within a week of taking office, can be considered "Good"?

Why put so much effort into something you know he won't reply to?

[nutsy54]

And if it does work...

If rampant government spending and new debt "worked", then we'd be in great shape after the last 8 years. . .

[dbx]

Payback?

It's payback for registering people who don't exist to vote for Obama as well as offering cigarettes, sandwiches and a ride to the homeless so they vote for Obama.

That's a helluva payback - and it's 4.1 billion... with a B.

It was sarcasm, bruh...........

[ElMariachi]

If rampant government spending and new debt "worked", then we'd be in great shape after the last 8 years. . .

People forget to mention that Japan tried the exact same bull**** and it didn't work for them either. But, wait, it failed to work because it wasn't tried on a "big enough scale"...right? right?

[edible_eye]

It was sarcasm, bruh...........

Werd.

[nutsy54]

I want to know where all these Republicans that voted no were the last 8 years.
When one party is in power they rubber stamp everything while the other side goes kicking and screaming. What a joke our political system is.

I got a solution: TERM LIMITS!

Just a reminder, Democrats have controlled Congress for the last two years, and they managed to continue the trend of massive government deficits. And a large chunk of Republicans did vote against the 2008 "Bailout Bill".

But this is a stunning new record: TARP+Stimulus= $1,170,000,000,000 in new debt within Obama's first month in office. It took the Republicans 2 1/2 years to achieve that result at the beginning of this decade.

[Nagalfar]

People forget to mention that Japan tried the exact same bull**** and it didn't work for them either. But, wait, it failed to work because it wasn't tried on a "big enough scale"...right? right?

Agreed, its a world economy, you cant start it with just a couple of nations spending a little bit of money...

[George Carlinian]

Because things would have been so much better with McCain/Palin, right?

[ElMariachi]

Because things would have been so much better with McCain/Palin, right?

LOL. Example 1 of what not to say when your political position is challenged.


"The other guys would have sucked more."

[Daegus]

.

I understand. The republicans pushed a lot until the first bailout and some of the fiscal conservatives finally threw their hands up and said no.

I think this whole thing is ridiculous and both sides are full of economic morons who are doing this country a disservice and truly running it into the ground.
I can only hope people remember this come election time.

[Stizzel]

Because things would have been so much better with McCain/Palin, right?

The only thing that would have been better about McCain is that there wouldn't have been so many zombies brainlessly supporting these exact same policies.

[ElMariachi]

The only thing that would have been better about McCain is that there wouldn't have been so many zombies brainlessly supporting these exact same policies.

McCain would have had to fight with the Democrat Congress, meaning gridlock and when it comes to government, the less they do, the better off we all are. Instead now we have an unchecked one-party monopoly controlling all facets of government.

[George Carlinian]

The only thing that would have been better about McCain is that there wouldn't have been so many zombies brainlessly supporting these exact same policies.

The Republicans would have been all for it, and there would have been a few Democratic opponents...but in reality, one party- one state.

[Stizzel]

The Republicans would have been all for it, and there would have been a few Democratic opponents...but in reality, one party- one state.

I hope you're kidding.

Republican politicians - probably. Enough dems would have supported it as well. As you say, we have a one party government.

I'm talking about the people, though.

[nutsy54]

Because things would have been so much better with McCain/Palin, right?

Wow, it actually took you 50 posts in the thread before jumping in with a totally irrelevant observation.

Guess What? Barack Obama is the President! Not Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Palin. You may have missed it, but it's been all over the news since last Tuesday. And, believe it or not, most of us actually expect President Obama to be responsible for his own policies and decisions.

So here's a thought: If the only way you can defend President Obama's actions is by comparing him to the politicians you hate the most. . . Then that's not saying much about his policies, is it?

[Nagalfar]

Because things would have been so much better with McCain/Palin, right?

There is no good choice when there is only 2 bad choices to choose from.



.

[George Carlinian]

I hope you're kidding.

Republican politicians - probably. Enough dems would have supported it as well. As you say, we have a one party government.

I'm talking about the people, though.

Yes, I meant the elected officials...though neocons and rush limbaugh fans would believe anything.

[codhead]

Any numbers on how much of this $819 billion will be spent in 2009? Last I heard, as the bill now stands, almost all the money will be spent in 2010 or later...

It seemed like everyone was in such a damn hurry to get this through so the world wouldn't end.