Senate passes stimulus: 'A good start'

Now we'll see first if Pelosi can actually leave the Senate version untouched to get it through the House, then if the stimulus actually works. The public may be patient with Obama, but you can bet the GOP will slam him every day that goes by without a recovery, starting this minute.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The ball is in Pelosi's court. If she sucks it up and accepts the Senate version, this thing will pass by the end of the week. If not, we'll find out exactly how tenuous those three GOP votes in the Senate are.

I'm surprised the Republicans even bother to vote, they are obviously not needed. Obama will tell the Democrats to push through a bill and they will ask "how fast?"

I just keep hearing REM in my head - "it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine."

Matt....Ya think?

Its funny how loyal Obama supporters try to pass off Obama as a productive politician when once again he has done nothing. All he did was give Nanny State Nancy a pen and a pad of paper to create her progressive/socialist wish list...

Truly astounding, I guess its a smart move because when this thing fails Obama can save face and throw Nanny State Nancy under the bus.

I'm enjoying the silliness from the GOP on this. They need to get beyond the beltway more. According to the Wash. Post, Sen. Grassley added $70 million in an AMT related amendment but still didn't vote for the bill. The amendment is fine by me but if you get to add over 8% to the cost of a bill with an amendment, I think you should be willing to compromise a tad and support the bill.

And all the calls that it is a spending bill and not a stimulus bill are just silly.

Jeff L - $70 million is .008% (or 8 thousandths of a percent) of $838 billion not 8%.

Don't get me wrong $70 million is a ton of money, but for better or worse, simply a drop in the hat when you're talking about $838,000,000,000.

If you're a Republican who has seen Karl Rove's promise of a permanent Gee Oh Pee majority shattered in the past four years, there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon. If only, if only, if only enough Americans can be made suffer for the next 20 months or so, there's a chance for whittling away at the Democrats' margins in Congress and to capture back some of the lost governorships and legislatures that Republicans have been losing their grip on in almost every region except the South.

Republicans see it as a good thing if only the unemployment rate stays high, if only enough businesses fail, if only enough people lose their homes to foreclosure, file for bankruptcy, have to tell their kids that the money they expected to have available to send them to college just isn't there anymore. Because, in their warped worldview, bad news for most of us Americans is good news for transforming the Republicans' misfortunes into an electoral restoration.

Obama's a one termer for sure, now.

Look, Obama had it rammed down our throats while he's still got momentum... which according to the polls, is fading... quick.

Now that he owns the gargantuan "stimulus" bill, he's a one-termer for sure, because this thing is a lemon. And he may be pinned down by big GOP gains in 2010 already.

Obama is bad news for this country- in every way. ___________________________________________

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance. blogspot.com/

* * * * *
Posted by: Jeff L. | February 10, 2009 1:46 PM
.
It seems to me, Slick, that you have no place calling anyone or anything silly. For starters, since when did $70 million dollars represent 8% or more of $838 BILLION? $70 million is 10% of $700 million. While you’re thinking about that one, can you tell what went into the bill after Grassley’s Amendment? How do you know something objectionable didn’t go in afterwards that made him change his mind?
.
As a completely separate matter, what makes you think this “stimulus” bill is going to do the job it’s expected to do? I mean, when we say we can put a man on the moon, we can draw diagrams of the space vehicle, give the physics for the propulsion system, and write out the math for the trajectory. What I would like to know, since you are such a non-silly person, is: What is the “how-we-get-from-Point-A-to-Point-B” explanation for this stimulus bill? I don’t see it. I have yet to hear a cogent, logical explanation as to how public works projects are going to uniformly ease the unemployment problem, especially among non-laborers. Were we planning to hand out picks and shovels to laid-off bookkeepers and teachers? How does it expect to improve the GNP when almost none of it is spent on production?
.
More importantly, how does any of it address the disastrous situation that we face in the housing and financial markets owing to the continuous downward spiral of foreclosures? Why are they continuing to ignore the problem? There’s at least $3 trillion more in real estate out there at risk of going underwater and ending up in foreclosure. We are going to see a massive collapse of our financial system if something isn’t done to change all this.
.
I agree with what Winston Churchill said about spending one’s way to prosperity. To do so, he said, is like someone standing on a bucket, expecting to pull himself up by the handle. That’s especially true now since we’re absolutely blind and our bucket is in a pit of quicksand. We still have no adult leadership in Washington.
.
Tom: Without the three Republican votes, the bill could have been stalled by a filibuster. So, tell me again: Why they weren’t needed?

Tom...you have REM in your head? Who do you think they voted for?

This bill means literally the death knell for thousands of senior citizens who can and will be denied health care under the rationing provision of the health care component in the bill. The plan includes a process whereby government bureaucrats can deny
surgery, tests and treatment to seniors whom the architect of the bill says should "get used to not getting the treatment they are used to." First, they kill unborn babies; now they plan to kill the elderly. What has our country come to under Obama?

Posted by: John W. | February 10, 2009 2:40 PM
............

Biff,
Would you PLEASE stop writing novels. The GOP is out of power because they represent the interests of the richest 2% of Americans and big corporations. If they don't change their ways soon they're going to go the way of the Whigs.

It doesn't take that long to write that.

Sorry to burst your bubble Reaganite Republican, but George Bush has destroyed the Republican Party for at least 10 years. The current Republicans are not improving their image by obstructing a potential improvement to the economy. The economy on its own will improve in two years and the Democrats will receive credit even though this package does little.

* * * * *
Posted by: kfunmxrs | February 10, 2009 2:50 PM
.
kfunmxrs,

We can see of course that you (JohnEEE-boy hiding behind yet another screen name) never took the time to read what I wrote. I wasn’t advocating the Republican ways of old, or new. Therefore, your comments about the Republican Party are entirely irrelevant.
.
The Republican version would have been to oppose a stimulus bill altogether. That’s not what I was talking about. I was simply pleading for a little sanity in a sea of hysteria and herd-like mentality. If Congress wanted a stimulus bill to boost the economy and end unemployment then it should have chosen more direct means of doing so. It didn’t do so. In addition, I pointed out that Congress and the President have both failed to address the bigger issue of having yet another $3 trillion drain out of the economy from an already hemorrhaging housing market. Nothing in stimulus bill - or on the drawing board - is designed to address this bigger problem.
.
But of course, the fact that you are a cheerleader and a hero worshipper keeps you from looking at reality. You think everything is going to be hunky-dory, even though Obama and Biden are nowhere near as sure as you are. You are fooling yourself. I suggest that if you can’t say anything more intelligent than you have, that you just put a sock in it.

I find it interesting, but really disturbing that the American interest has become as ususal a political interest. For years nothing was done while America failed economically, all the while those in Washington did nothing but what would get them reelected. Those who did nothing decide now to voice an opinion. It is an opinion that sounds like it was taken from a scripted political speech from before time, ie. this time when American's really need action not reelection jargon. Shame on you! We know why you say something now, because it sets you up for future years. As an aside, why anyone voted for an incubent in this last election, is a true mystery? Politicians are for politicians and Americans are for Americans. What principle do you base your decision on in this issue? Surely you have shamed yourself to think that such a split almost exactly down party lines, is for America? Step outside the box of politics and help the American people.

kfunmxrs, you know that is a copout. Saying that the "GOP only represents the interests of the richest 2% and the big corporations" is just another one of those bandwagon statements that has absolutely no substance to it.

The Republican money machine must have its tribute in the form of legislation, deregulation, tax breaks, and profiteering at government expense if the Republican candidates expect their campaigns to be funded. The loyalty of the Republican congressmen is bought and paid for by the special interests (Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist etc) and they know that they will be replaced by more malleable candidates if they dare speak out of line. We have Phil Gingrey's shining example of the homage the Republicans must pay (he apologized for speaking out against Mullah Rush) to the right wing noise machine to have their blessing and their cash. Republicans have sold their souls to an oligarchy that believes that America must be owned and operated soley for its benefit.

Gee Obama really had to push no paying taxes Geithner through so he could come up with a plan that sunk the DOW over 400 points. Awesome. Here is what the traders/investors of the world are saying(when they are not selling)

I'm really underwhelmed by the plan," says David Twibell, president of wealth management for Colorado Capital Bank in Denver.

Zero has changed," said Michael Cohn, chief market strategist at Atlantis Asset Management in New York.

The idea that you can just borrow and spend, borrow and spend, run ever-larger deficits and essentially print money with no consequences is economically naive," says Mike Larson, analyst for Weiss Research's Money & Markets newsletter.

The poor reception afforded to Mr. Geithner's speech in which little was revealed reminded investors that more turbulent times may be ahead without some sense of resolution to the health of the banks' balance sheets," Andrew Wilkinson, senior strategist at Interactive Brokers, wrote in a research note to clients

The gov't is now your doctor. Every treatment will have to approved.

The govt will know your personal issues with this new medical

Um actually Jeff L. it is .008% you should really try doing the math instead of spouting off figures that sound good to you.

Um actually Jeff L. it is .008% you should really try doing the math instead of spouting off figures that sound good to you.

The problem is that America has long begun to become irrelevant because it has no accountability, only money. The check-mate is to remove the money. We have no real assets left only interests and attractions. The farms are genetic fields, the metropolitan land and water are polluted, and the people live outside of their respective means. In most municipalities, there is so much that has been kept secret for so long, that there is simply no appreciable value. And, almost everything that makes us great can be viewed on-line. We have become our own Aesop’s Fable.

"...The GOP is out of power because they represent the interests of the richest 2% of Americans and big corporations. If they don't change their ways soon they're going to go the way of the Whigs.

It doesn't take that long to write that."

Posted by: kfunmxrs | February 10, 2009 2:50 PM

Way to keep it short and dumb-

I am not going to defend the REP party, they had long ago stopped being the traditional conservative party that they like to campaign on...your 2% huffington post factoid pretty much speaks to your grasp on reality...

46% of the country voted for what was likely the worst candidate to represent the REP party in years- If the party would have been able to actually nominate a candidate that actually stood for and acted on what most americans support - fiscal conservatism, respect for life and small government - it is likely that president Obama would be still be the junior senator from Illinois...

According to the President, there is no pork in this bill.

I am reminded of another President who, with a straight face, told a Grand Jury "it depends on what your definition of pork is". At least I think he said pork.

In any case, that President was lying as well.

If the party would have been able to actually nominate a candidate that actually stood for and acted on what most americans support - fiscal conservatism, respect for life and small government - it is likely that president Obama would be still be the junior senator from Illinois...
Posted by: heartburn | February 10, 2009 4:30 PM
...

PrePuke,
Your Repug party has never stood for "fisal conservatism", that's just a soundbite to get the stupid part of your constituency to stand up on command and start clapping.

The Repugs stand for corporate giveaways and putting money into the back pockets of their cronie no bid contract pals like Halliburton.
From now on when a Repug call himself a "fiscal conservative" he should be sued for fraud.
.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/surplus/smokydoggg/surplus.jpg
.

Greg:

Did it also remind you of the president who said there were WMDs in Iraq?

* * * * *
Posted by: heartburn | February 10, 2009 4:30 PM
.
Hear, hear!

Country first?.... sad to see Republicans using the opportunity to position them self's for the next elections. They weren't such righteous fiscal conservatives, when Bush got us dipper in the hole during the last eight years.

“Your Repug party has never stood for ‘fisal conservatism’ . . . .”
.
*****
Posted by: antacid | February 10, 2009 5:04 PM
.
What’s “fisal conservatism” ding-dong? If you are referring to “fiscal conservatism” and the reference to “Repug” is to the “Republican Party,” then you are wrong. The last time the debt decreased was during a Republican administration with a Republican led congress. I think that pretty much speaks for itself in terms of fiscal conservatism.

Posted by: antacid | February 10, 2009 5:04 PM

Cartoon boy--

Read my post again- my comment was that most americans (ignoring any political party) are fiscally conservative...

BTW- how do you sue someone for fraud based on their viewpoint alone?

Did it also remind you of the president who said there were WMDs in Iraq?

Posted by: Memory | February 10, 2009 5:06 PM

Which president would you be referring to?

Clinton or Bush... they both, as well as just about every other country we share intelligence with, believed and acted on their belief that Iraq had a WMD program...

I would love to know who the GOP sell-out was. They needed 60 to pass or fillibuster and I find it kind of suspicious they got 61.

All these politicians are evil, it doesnt matter if its Conservative or Liberal, all they care about is their little inner special interest circles.

No doubt plenty of future votes were traded between Conservatives and Liberals to make this deal happen.

I just have one question about this plan. Is the average Joe getting any cash in hand? Because I could sure use some.

He went from "Hope & Change" to "Fear & Cash" give me a break! Is this his idea of democratic pay-back to all his Chicago cronies...we all see Daley was over anxious with his wish list, and he wouldn't even let us take a peek...The Chicago Way has gone national, good luck America.

When NAFTA was signed this depression was set in motion. It took a while, but you can see the results now.

The last time the debt decreased was during a Republican administration with a Republican led congress. I think that pretty much speaks for itself in terms of fiscal conservatism.

Posted by: John W. | February 10, 2009 5:20 PM
....

HAHAHA!!!!!!!
Yeah and Ronny Raygun rode around on a flying unicorn too...

What you idiot Repugs in the minority see as "success", everyone else see's as "FAILURE"....and that's exactly why you are in the minority now.

"The budget deficit explosion that occurred during the 1980s were a direct result of President Reagan's tax cuts, and the resulting lack of available funds that could have been earmarked toward social programs contributed to the continuing deconstruction of American social programs. Reagan's assault on these programs took as its starting point the conservative ideological foundation that if people rely upon government welfare strategies to provide them with such things as food, housing and help taking care of their children it will serve as a disincentive for them to work; therefore the less the government helps the poor, ultimately the more they will help themselves and the better off they will be."
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/19457/ronald_reagan_budget_cuts_deficit_spending.html?cat=37

Go ahead and have the last word, you blowhard. I know how much your giant ego depends on it.

Come on memory,

When did President Bush tell Congress that there were WMD's in Iraq?

This, my freind, is a media fabrication. What he did was present data provided by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the UN. All of which concluded that Sadam had them (along with a few thousand dead Kurds).

No sir, I'm not talking about mis-representing data, I'm talking about lying to the American people right here, right now.

Thanks heartbrm, it would seem that memory has none.

Which president would you be referring to?Clinton or Bush... they both, as well as just about every other country we share intelligence with, believed and acted on their belief that Iraq had a WMD program...

Posted by: heartburn | February 10, 2009 5:26 PM
.....

PrePuke,
No one fully reads your crap because it's always filled with the usual rightwing lunatic fringe happy talk that just got your GOPer team voted into the minority.

Clinton wasn't stupid enough to do what your GOPer heroes Bush and Cheney did and invade and occupy a country (Iraq) because he "thought" they had WMD's. In fact your hero W was told point blank that Iraq didn't have WMD's and he ignored those people.

The vote is public Nick; if you can't find out who voted for it, you should unplug your computer.

I am very pleased that the Stimulus Bill passed the Senate. I am sorry to see that the Republicans cut education funds even though they supported 700 billion to prop up those institutions and people who labored hard to create this mess. Don't get me wrong--I think the banking and insurance bailouts were a bitter pill that needed to be taken to save our system, but it is interesting how much our finacial titans and their chosen blue senators hate to help rest of us.

When the dust settles and we end up in worse shape and the money is used for all the wrong purposes, by all the wrong people and there is no accountability, we can rest assured that the Democrats will blame the Republicans for the Democrats passing a bill with only 3 Republican votes.
Sad day for the U.S. when nearly 50% of Americans are disenfranchised by people who think "fish barriers" and new 'sod' for the National Mall are economically stimulating...

To all the republican nut jobs out there. The bush admin. destroyed the country, PERIOD! No one said the stimulus will fix anything! At this point, all one can do is give the working poor a break while trying SOMETHING! The republicans represent the richest 2%, which means that it only takes 2% of america to vote in bush twice?? NO! It means a lot of idiots that earn 7% unemployment and gas nearly $5.00/gal., and skyrocketing grocery and utility bills??

To all the republican nut jobs out there. The bush admin. destroyed the country, PERIOD! No one said the stimulus will fix anything! At this point, all one can do is give the working poor a break while trying SOMETHING! The republicans represent the richest 2%, which means that it only takes 2% of america to vote in bush twice?? NO! It means a lot of idiots that earn 7% unemployment and gas nearly $5.00/gal., and skyrocketing grocery and utility bills??

Where do you people get your information? A campaign ad? We had 6 great years of economic growth. The Dow Jones Ind was at 14,000 at the end of 2007! Was it something specifically that the dems or repubs did to cause the downturn? I don't see how you could point out anything they did. It was more about what they did not do! Turn off the stereotypes and see what is happening in the real world. You are putty in the party's hand you so blindly follow. They will make stupid mistakes as long as we let them. Thing for yourself don't just believe one side know best.

I see a lot of folks bashing the democrats here so I'll ask this - can someone explain exactly how the republican party is the party of "fiscal conservatism" when the national debt went up to $10 trillion over the past eight years? Why weren't any of the republicans worried about that when Bush was constantly "borrowing and spending"?

* * * * *
Posted by: antacid | February 10, 2009 7:05 PM
.
Dwight David Eisenhower watched the budget and lowered the debt. No one has done so ever since. Choke on it, you KoolAid drinking ignoramus.
.
As for Ronald Reagan, he had a Cold War to wage with a multi-trillion dollar price tag. No other President before him was able to stop it. We don’t have it any more because of his efforts. No President since then has had a similar reason for spending as much.
.
Ignorant blowhard.

John W.....you ding dong, show me your chart for the claim you make. All the charts that I find can not substantiate your claim, as the charts do not go back that far in history. Here are some charts to show you how wonderful the pugs history is at spending our tax money. They are completely, and absolutely NOT fiscally responsible. They never have been and they never will be......in the modern era you goof.

Oooppps, I forgot to add the links John. I really hope you study them over closely. Please end your delusion of thinking pugs are fiscally conservative. The facts prove otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGqLx61MRY6w

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Federal%20Deficit%20Surplus%20and%20National%20Debt

The fact GOP congressmen and governors are at odds on this is a television matter. Time to get the party line straight. Those in Washington get the ear of Fox News, those in the statehouses get local coverage.

Ponzi scheme passed. Earmarks galore for the pathetic Pelosi and her thugs. None of the Republicans should have voted for this spendulus pkg. that will according to Obama's economists at the CBO won't create jobs at least not in the private sector. Truly socialism that has failed in Europe. Can't afford it and now my children will have to pay for this debt burden placed on them. Thanks liberal idiots! Talk about failed policies.

Like Sarah (I lie 4Jesus) Palin - The GOP is the gift that keeps on giving. With your Obstructionist Behavior you will ensure President Obama another 4 years!

The Voice of the Republican Party = Walin Palin, Joe the Plumber and Rush (Oxycontin) Lintball.

What's going on? The Dow drops 381 points upon passage of Obama's spending spree and not one article about it in the Courant. Talk about liberal slanted coverage!!!!!

What's going on? The Dow drops 381 points upon passage of Obama's spending spree and not one article about it in the Courant. Talk about liberal slanted coverage!!!!!

AND buried in this monumental PORK fraud is the fine print. In the fine print is Daschle the health-care lobbyists' proposal for the socialization of health care.

The fingerprints of the fraud is in his book on how to sneak socialized health care past the due diligence of Congress. In the book it is said that if one chooses to BYPASS Congressional hearings on health care one CAN put this legislation into a budget bill. And wha-la NO public debate. And when the public finds out about this premeditated fraud it will be too late.

This from the Messiah of truth openess and change.

The lying empty suit and the dirty way this Crook County Organizer will cheat the American Public.

"...No one fully reads your crap because it's always filled with the usual rightwing lunatic fringe happy talk that just got your GOPer team voted into the minority..."

Posted by: antacid | February 10, 2009 7:12 PM

Cartoon boy-

You respond to almost everything I post, so apparently you are the exception...and I have to say your fixation with me is getting awkward...should I be flattered or afraid?

* * * * *
Posted by: Xcellentform | February 10, 2009 11:07 PM
.
I’m sorry you are wowed by visual aids to the exclusion of information provided in the words. If you re-read: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm - which is one of the pages you provided, you will see where it talks about Eisenhower. It’s right there (so close, in fact, that if it was a snake, it would have bitten you):
.
“Two of the eight years Eisenhower served as President saw debt reduction during the years when Democrats were in charge of Congress, 1956 & 7.”
.
Did you see that? It wasn’t deficit reduction they were speaking about, although he did that too. It was DEBT reduction. My mistake was in suggesting it was done with a Republican-led Congress. Actually, it was a bigger feat doing it with a Democrat-led Congress. But there it is: Debt reduction. Furthermore if you look at all your sites with fancy charts - as well as http://www.geldpress.com/2008/07/us-budget-reporting-deception/ - you will see that this was the last time the debt actually decreased under any President.
.
Eisenhower really was a debt and deficit hawk. Even in the years he didn’t achieve balanced budgets, he certainly tried to. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894018,00.html and http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/sloeis.html Not only that, he tried to do it without dismantling the New Deal.
.
Eisenhower’s record, by itself, destroys your claim that Republicans have never been fiscal conservatives.
.
But there’s more than that. Although they did not achieve their goals of reining in spending, both Nixon and Ford tried to do so. Nixon actually managed to present a balanced budget to Congress in 1969, which was the only one between 1961 and 1998. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon Under Nixon and Ford, the debt grew less than under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Duh’bya. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Admittedly, however, Nixon became a self-professed Keynesian in order to battle inflation (in the “popular” sense of the term).
.
In addition, you have succumbed to the false argument of judging all Republicans by Republican politicians, and especially presidents. The further one gets away from presidents to the grass roots, the more fiscally conservative Republicans get. Bill Clinton, for instance, who has been touted as a fiscal conservative among Democrats, had actually increased the debt substantially during his first term. It was only after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 that the debt began to level off toward the end of his second term. That’s because the Republican takeover included many deficit and budget hawks, a number of whom demanded balanced budgets and paying down the debt. They are sorely missed today.
.
Finally, rank and file Republicans, however, are very much interested in fiscal conservatism. This is why some blue dog Democrats have won in recent years in traditionally conservative regions because of crossover support from disenchanted Republicans. The Republicans in those regions prefer to vote for a true fiscal conservative - albeit a Democrat - rather an imposter in Republican clothing.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.