Bail Out Package

[rushmc 23]

I appears today that the House package will get less than 2 (if any) Republican votes. Seeing how this “bail out” package spends less than 12 cents on the dollar (based on the total cost of the package and the detail of how the money is spent) and less than 20% being spent in 2009, it is becoming apparent (and has been labeled as much) and just a normal spending package with huge amounts of pork.

That being said, if the votes go as reported, this bill will be a Democratic bill only. Obama does not need a single Republican vote to pass this bill. Why does he want Republican support so badly?????

Answer is simple. Should if fail (and it will if passed) it will be a Democratic noose only. But if it succeeds, the Dems will be in power for decades to come.

I ask again, why does Obama so desperately want bi-partisan support for this bill if he does not need the Republicans and can pass is without a single vote from them?

It also appears (and things can change) that the Senate Republicans will follow suit with the house.

Going to get interesting….

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,100]

>and just a normal spending package with huge amounts of pork.

Actually, I wouldn't even use those terms. It's basically all pork. The thinking (which I disagree with) is that if you spend enough, the economy does better because of all this new money flowing into it. I mean, there is definitely validity to that concept, but I don't see it as the role of government.

>Obama does not need a single Republican vote to pass this bill.

Actually he does; he needs at least one to overcome cloture.

> Why does he want Republican support so badly?

Probably because 1) he needs it and 2) he said he would seek bipartisan support.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>and just a normal spending package with huge amounts of pork.

Actually, I wouldn't even use those terms. It's basically all pork. The thinking (which I disagree with) is that if you spend enough, the economy does better because of all this new money flowing into it. I mean, there is definitely validity to that concept, but I don't see it as the role of government.

>Obama does not need a single Republican vote to pass this bill.

Actually he does; he needs at least one to overcome cloture.

> Why does he want Republican support so badly?

Probably because 1) he needs it and 2) he said he would seek bipartisan support.

Well you and I agree on what the bill is.

And yes, he needs one vote to move but I think is is more than what you state.

As you said and I agree, the bill is nearly all pork. That bill will fail when looked at in the context of saving the economy. I think he wants more than a few votes so he can say when it fails, that it was both sides that failed. He will not be able to say that if this moves forward as it looks to move now.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,100]

> I think he wants more than a few votes so he can say when it fails, that
> it was both sides that failed.

True. And since he needs one republican vote to pass it, it's pretty much guaranteed that he will have at least a few. I recall all the claims that the war was the democrat's doing as well since some of them voted for the resolution to support military action; same thing will probably happen here.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> I think he wants more than a few votes so he can say when it fails, that
> it was both sides that failed.

True. And since he needs one republican vote to pass it, it's pretty much guaranteed that he will have at least a few. I recall all the claims that the war was the democrat's doing as well since some of them voted for the resolution to support military action; same thing will probably happen here.

Ok, I will try and remember that 1 or a few makes it bi-partasn.
Bush got only 1 vote huh? Hmm, I did not remember that.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,100]

>Ok, I will try and remember that 1 or a few makes it bi-partasn.

Nope, it doesn't - any more than a handful of votes for a military action resolution makes it bipartisan. But democrats learn from republicans (and vice versa) - and it will be reported as bipartisan no matter what happens, as long as they have that one vote.

None of this really matters. The economy will recover, and the one or two republicans who voted for it will take the credit. (Not because the stimulus package will solve the problem instantly, but because the economy _always_ recovers.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Ok, I will try and remember that 1 or a few makes it bi-partasn.

Nope, it doesn't - any more than a handful of votes for a military action resolution makes it bipartisan. But democrats learn from republicans (and vice versa) - and it will be reported as bipartisan no matter what happens, as long as they have that one vote.

None of this really matters. The economy will recover, and the one or two republicans who voted for it will take the credit. (Not because the stimulus package will solve the problem instantly, but because the economy _always_ recovers.)

Ya, it will recove, but how fast and the effect will be looked at

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,100]

>Ya, it will recove, but how fast and the effect will be looked at.

Yep. And before it recovers, the republicans who didn't vote for it will be saying "See? See? It didn't recover yet, and I bravely opposed it, not like those cowardly democrats!"

After it recovers, the republicans who did vote for it will say "See? See? It did recover, after I bravely stood up to my colleagues and did the right thing!"

There's not much question that it will recover faster as a result of the stimulus package and the tax cuts; Keynes is more right than he is wrong. That does not in and of itself make it a good idea though.

[JohnRich 4]

Oink! Oink! Oink!

Critics say bailout bill is stuffed with billions in pork
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/03/1489413.aspx

Tax Earmarks, Pork and Other Bailout Bill Horrors
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28851

Pork recipients:
- An Oregon arrow manufacturer
- Motor sports racing track facilities
- Rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
- Investors in the District of Columbia or on Indian reservations
- Building and renovating restaurants
- Book donations to public schools
- Recipients of settlement payments from Exxon Valdez litigation
- the predicate to taxing carbon emissions
- doubles the subsidy for biodiesel production
- stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems
- Secure Rural Schools
- tax breaks for worsted wool makers
- tax breaks for Hollywood
and so it goes...

If Obama wants to show us "change", he'll shoot this pig in the head when it climbs up on his desk.

But I don't expect it.

Instead, he'll sign the bill with great flourish and fanfare, and everyone will gush about how the great messiah has saved America from financial ruin!

[rushmc 23]

There's not much question that it will recover faster as a result of the stimulus package and the tax cuts; Keynes is more right than he is wrong. That does not in and of itself make it a good idea though.

Really?

When the tax cut Obama wants is give money to those who for the most part do not pay taxes????

You call that a tax cut?

You are serious? Or desperate for the canidate you voted for to look good!

It early in his period but he is off to a ruff start. Thank God some have grown some and oppose this "stimulis" package

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,100]

>When the tax cut Obama wants is give money to those who for the
>most part do not pay taxes? You call that a tax cut?

No. I call the tax cuts for people who are MAKING money tax cuts. Giving people back more money than they pay in taxes is welfare. Both help an economy recover, but neither one is a good idea in the long run without reducing government spending.

[wayneflorida 0]

825 billion divided by about 350 milion of us.

Pull out your check book because you now owe the government $2,357.14. EXTRA


As James Brown use to say---- I feel good

[TrophyHusband 0]

thank you republicans and 11 dems who voted no. this is purely a democratic bill, but i'm glad to see a few of them vote no. i'm going to see if i can find a list of the 11 d's so i know who they are.

there's where the dems may have fucked themselves. this money is going to trickle out so slowly and have no noticable effect in less than two years when they are up for re-election. the voters are not going to have a clear picture of where their money went, they are just going to know that the dems spent a bunch of it with nothing to show for it.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[ianmdrennan 2]

I'm afraid you may be right on this

Sadly, while I'm in favor of the concept of this bill - I fear it's been poorly conceived, and thought out, in the rush to "do something".

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[TrophyHusband 0]

my weak google skills have once again failed me and i can't find a list of who voted and how. hopefully someone will compile a list and get it out there.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

my weak google skills have once again failed me and i can't find a list of who voted and how. hopefully someone will compile a list and get it out there.

I checked the Thomas web site, but the info on that Bill is not up yet. It takes them a day to make things current. We should have something there tomorrow.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

my weak google skills have once again failed me and i can't find a list of who voted and how. hopefully someone will compile a list and get it out there.

I checked the Thomas web site, but the info on that Bill is not up yet. It takes them a day to make things current. We should have something there tomorrow.

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/843-Stimulus-Package-Passes-House-With-No-Republican-Votes

None of the republicans voted in favor of the bill, and 11 democrats voted against it too:

Rep. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2]
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]
Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5]
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11]
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[bodypilot90 0]

Below is an updated ‘101 index as to why Spending Does Not Equal Stimulus:

HIGH COST TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

After Congress appropriates the FY’09 omnibus bill, they may have spent over $1.6 Trillion in less than one month!
The current “stimulus bill” is on track to be the LARGEST SPENDING BILL EVER enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small in today’s dollars. 2010 spending in this bill is more than double New Deal spending in 1936.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of borrowing this money is estimated at over $347 billion, bringing the total cost of the spending package to well over $1.1 Trillion.
The “Stimulus” Bills Your Family – $819 Billion is equivalent to borrowing $10,520 from EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA. This borrowed money is equivalent to what the average family spends on food, clothing, and health care in an entire year.
If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.
BAD IDEAS – “THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE”
The hidden liberal policy agenda inside the ‘stimulus bill’:

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds: Nearly double the total outlays for the Dept. of Education in 2007 – making good on Reid-Pelosi-Obama education promises to the NEA.
$87 Billion Medicaid bailout: If we keep bailing states out without any accountability, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending. It forces fiscally responsible taxpayers in states, like Indiana, to pay for the fiscally irresponsible decisions by bureaucrats in states like Illinois.
Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP: Congress is using the stimulus to push forward their liberal health care agenda. This incremental strategy will ultimately move the country closer the tipping point where government will control more health care spending than the private sector – leaving individuals and families will less control over their personal health care decisions.
Green Jobs?: The myth of ‘green jobs’ merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left’s agenda. It is a zero sum game. More than doubling spending, the stimulus also has over $35 billion for the Dept. of Energy. DOE’s current budget is $23.8 billion.
Redistribution: Refundable “Make Work Pay” Tax Credits for people who don’t pay taxes
Pork Spending: TV Coupons ($650 M), Nat’l Endowment for the Arts ($50 M), Hollywood ($246 M)
BAD RESULTS

No Jobs: While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can’t estimate even ONE job will be created.
Ineffective: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus’ bill can even be spent by the end of FY’10. Well short of the 75% benchmark.
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” – FDR’s Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

BETTER IDEAS – TWICE THE JOBS, HALF THE COST

Make the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts permanent, instead of raising taxes in 2011; Reduce Marginal Tax Rates for Individuals and Businesses by 10% creating new jobs. Adopting just this one proposal would create between 500,000 and 1 million jobs in one year.
Reduce the Death Tax to at least 15% ($5 mil. individual exclusion)
Enact long-term reforms and budgets for entitlement spending, putting long-term obligations from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, front and center in the budget process.
Assess and enforce long term spending rules in Congress. Get us out of debt!
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/28/stimulus-101-update-the-trillion-dollar-spending-plan-passes-house/

[hwt 0]

Clinton signed NAFTA and Bush supported free trade.
so first they outsourced our manufacturing jobs then they lower loan restrictions which flooded our market with risky home buyers which raised home prices dramatically.
After the whole thing collapses what do they do?? fix the one sided trading agreement ??. how about fixing the housing crisis ??
answer is no to fixing the problems and yes to spending on pork.Our kids have to pay for this and it will not fix the problem.
what pulled us out of the great depression ?? Manufacturing did and guess what? they outsourced it.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

what pulled us out of the great depression ?? Manufacturing did and guess what they outsourced it.

Nothing FDR did worked better than WW2.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[TrophyHusband 0]

thanks for that list. we'll have to see if these same guys stick to their guns on stimulus and bailout bills. good for them.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

thanks for that list. we'll have to see if these same guys stick to their guns on stimulus and bailout bills. good for them.

News reports this AM indicated that no republicans voted for the package. At this point it is a Democratic bill

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

what pulled us out of the great depression ?? Manufacturing did and guess what they outsourced it.

Nothing FDR did worked better than WW2.

people seem to not want to understand that FDR's policies did nothing but extend the depression. when FDR took office the unemployment rate was about 25%, after his new deal plan it dropped to about 14% but by the time his second term started unemployment was back to about 20%. The jobs FDR created were only temporary and when the new deal money ran out so did the jobs. fortunatly for FDR wwII started so he could ramp up manudacturing and that is what ended the depression.

The only real bright spot in FDR's new deal was that the projects he promoted in the new deal like roads, dams and other infrastructure, gave us the ability to produce the products needed for the war.

With that in mind, spending money to build our infrastructure and other areas like that would give us benifits down the road, but the pork in this bill for the left's personal agenda will only sink us deeper into a fiscal nightmare for years to come.

[livendive 8]

I'm opposed to this package on the principle that I think the government should stay out of such things. However, I'm laughing my ass off at all the Republicans, especially talk show/fox news people, who are using this as a launching point about how this is typical Democrat socialist spending. They're throwing a complete fit to pin this on those nasty "liberals" and conveniently forgetting just how much their guy spent in the last 8 years, including these kind of bailout funds in recent months.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm opposed to this package on the principle that I think the government should stay out of such things. However, I'm laughing my ass off at all the Republicans, especially talk show/fox news people, who are using this as a launching point about how this is typical Democrat socialist spending. They're throwing a complete fit to pin this on those nasty "liberals" and conveniently forgetting just how much their guy spent in the last 8 years, including these kind of bailout funds in recent months.

Blues,
Dave

I have not seen any tv on this yet. I just heard the ABC radio news on it.
I have found out they are not telling us that 11 Democrats voted against it. Cool

I guess if you think the drunken spending that went on the last 8 years makes this bill ok to go ahead with, well, you and I will have to disagree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln