US House Passes Stimulus With Zero GOP Votes

[Dillon6962]

Dam they drank too much Koolaid already.

 

[Dillon6962]

Well if you go back way back to when the first people came to this country. According to what some of us have been taught in history classes. Go way back to the Mayflower yea the Pilgrims. There form of rule or was socialist type. Thanksgiving happened because the had so much food to be able to invite the Indians to shear with them. Why because each worked to produce there own food. Before they pooled there food together.

I work as an auto mechanic and have see this type of plan before with groups of tech. They work on a team and pool all there accumulated hours they made there. The main thing is that everyone is different. Some work harder than others. Call them slackers and achievers. the slackers get the same pay if they don't produce the same hours as the achievers. Apply that to the economy and you get your awnser to a lot of things. There has never been a socialist country that has prospered. Socialisom does not WORK

 

[sunoftheskye]

Jesus, so many of you act like high-schoolers. The immaturity is the WORST in the forum that's supposed to be the most intelligent.

 

[andysayshi]

In an attempt to bring us back to the topic.....

Have you considered that maybe the GOP didn't vote for the package because it's a bad idea. You immediately assume that this package will 'stimulate' and provide relief to the economy just because Obama isn't an "American Hater."

This package has had no formal economic studies or investigations, Obama is just throwing out money.
Money which really isn't going to anything pertinent to this economic crisis.
Most is going to education, healthcare, and other government agencies. But does this really stimulate? How am I affected by this. Will I get a job now? This package seems quite irrelevant. It doesnt help that 100 million is going to reconstruction of the Smithsonian and another 50 million is going to support arts. Millions of dollars are being spent on projects that won't necessarily help the middle class.

This is just a way for Obama to use his new power to change America into a nation fully dependent on the federal government.

The thinking behind a stimulus package is quite clear. Let's use your Smithsonian reconstruction example. The Government spends $100 million on new works for the Smithsonian. This requires construction contractors, who will hire construction workers. The construction work requires raw materials: lumber, concrete etc, providing expinditure in those supply industries. The construction workers drive trucks, which will need gas and maintenance, sustaining jobs in those other sectors. The construction workers eat food, which will sustain food outlets in the areas that construction happens. Once the work is done, many more contractors, organizers and staff will be required for new exhibitions, cleaning, transport etc. People will travel to the new exhibitions, using gas, buying food along the way, maybe staying in hotels, seeing other local attractions.

The objective of such stimulus packages is, on one hand, to provide support for failing infrastructure, and on the other, to trickle into the mainstream economy. It's purpose is not to directly resolve an issue relating to the economic crisis, but to stimulate business and industry more broadly.

 

[sunoftheskye]

The thinking behind a stimulus package is quite clear. Let's use your Smithsonian reconstruction example. The Government spends $100 million on new works for the Smithsonian. This requires construction contractors, who will hire construction workers. The construction work requires raw materials: lumber, concrete etc, providing expinditure in those supply industries. The construction workers drive trucks, which will need gas and maintenance, sustaining jobs in those other sectors. The construction workers eat food, which will sustain food outlets in the areas that construction happens. Once the work is done, many more contractors, organizers and staff will be required for new exhibitions, cleaning, transport etc. People will travel to the new exhibitions, using gas, buying food along the way, maybe staying in hotels, seeing other local attractions.

The objective of such stimulus packages is, on one hand, to provide support for failing infrastructure, and on the other, to trickle into the mainstream economy. It's purpose is not to directly resolve an issue relating to the economic crisis, but to stimulate business and industry more broadly.

Ding, ding, ding! And we have a winner.

 

[jJoEd77]

yes but how many jobs does anti smoking awareness create?
i understand the Smithsonian domino effect but there are some plans that really don't stimulate and those things shouldnt be considered at this point in time.

 

[techboywi]

Here is betting that if the stimulus package DOES work, those who trashed it, Obama, and the Dems will NOT admit they were wrong

 

[jJoEd77]

and the problem doesnt seem to be with the amount of money circulating. the problem seems to lie with the management and expenses of businesses. if we just give out money, it doesnt change how the businesses run so we might just run into the same situation we are in now after the stimulus package runs out.

 

[NW007]

Well, it is good to see that the CE & P threads are for the most part true to their normal rules. RATIONAL debate not allowed.

Only two comments tonight:

1. The Republicans are learning from some of their mistakes of the past few years. The voters were upset that they allowed spending to get out of control and balloon the federal deficit. So they are making efforts to get back on track of being fiscally responsible and making sure the dollars spent have actual economic impact rather than just promioting social agendas.

2. The President should enjoy his high poll numbers, because they are probably at the highest point they will be (if they haven't in fact already started to drop) Remember the days that GW had 90 % popularity ratings.

Well, if nothing else it is interesting to see how intolerant many of the comments are on here.

Enjoy the debate

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Um, maybe because the voters TOLD both political parties that we as a nation DEMAND universal health care? Maybe because the voters DEMAND that government regulate and provide accountability? After all, as that big closet queen, Karl Rove, said, "Elections have consequences."

Obama should tell Republicans in congress to STFU. They should sit back and let America's Party, the ruling Democratic Party, lead the way. The Dems need to tell the Republican fiends, perverts, fiddle-faddlers, fifth-columnists and affiliated upskirters to STFU.

Oh, yes, yes, yes, the "str8" Republicans can still do meth, still hire gay prostitutes to have receptive bareback sex, they can still steal from the petty cash fund, they can keep taking their kickbacks and all the other shit they usually pull. But lead? Govern? THEM? HAHAHA!

There is so much fluff in there the contradictions are hidden well.
The biggest one almost leers out, though: you want Republicans to "STFU", and then you think there will be "accountability".

The rest is just borderline baiting, Alfie, and you know it.

Good to see the Republicans had the balls to say no.

Isn't it pathetic to see how often the biggest America-hater of all (the O P in this thread) keeps tossing that phrase about.

It is good to see.
One-third (at least) of this bill has nothing to do with stimulus.
Most of it isn't even going to go into motion for months and years.
It's packed with Democratic pork.

Republicans not voting for it is the best way to reject the lie that it is.

Now, now! Can we keep the purse fights to a minimum tonight?

Maybe if you'd slap Alfie down for his constant baiting and taunting, it would help. He's back to his old habits of lowering the level of discourse in every thread he jumps into, spilling bile and despite every which way.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm all for kicking this system right to the curb.Unregulated Capitalism does not work.

Wouldn't you think that by the time the Feds started bailing out banks and major manufacturers,that maybe Capitalism is flawed..Especially,this greedy,flesh eating kind we have today?

No, it showed that government meddling in the markets is flawed.

Government regulation of industry has almost invariably resulted of the concentration of power in the regulated industry, the stifling of competition and creativity, and the flow of wealth to those who get to be part of the corporate-government structure.

This problem isn't because of unregulated capitalism, it's because of regulation of capitalism -- very, very bad regulation, including regulation by absence.

I don't know why right wingers are so afraid of health care, education,and a decent quality of life for all Americans,not just wealthy people.I guess it's much better when people are paying 30 grand a year for college, and are one illness away from losing everything they've worked their whole lives for.Why shouldn't taxpayers have the same healthcare as lawmakers? Why are politicians deserving of healthcare and working Americans must often decide between bills or health insurance?It's bullshit, and if it Socialism can change that...Bring it on!

As for health care, government control over "public health" means government control over every last aspect of personal life that the government might want to get into.

Once again, the GOP showed it ass..For all the talk about bi partisanship, they showed they are only interested in it when it benefits them.Otherwise, fuck everyone and hooray for me..

That's fine by me.I just hope that President Obama, doesn't even waste his time on these scumbags any more.The Democrats have a majority, fuck the republicans.Now is the time to ram the Democratic agenda through, and don't even consult with the GOP.They dont matter.They proved it again.Fuck em.

The Republicans voted the way they did to a great extent because the Democrats are like Alfie: they don't want unity, they don't want cooperation, they don't care about anyone who doesn't agree with them. Obama showed that he'll listen -- but only to the ideas he's ready to schedule time for. He showed he'll compromise -- but only on the items he puts up as negotiable.

In other words, he's shown in the handling of this package that while he may be a Democrat, he's not a democrat: he doesn't care about "we the people", he only cares about his people. That's why the package is stuffed full of goodies for Democrats, pork for his people, but nothing for Republicans.

Yeah, he brought change, all right -- a sharp turn toward one-party rule.

If we're lucky, the Senate will sink this package and make him dump out all the partisan, non-stimulus content -- that'll leave maybe a third of what's there, a good foundation for a real unified effort.

 

[Kulindahr]

The thinking behind a stimulus package is quite clear. Let's use your Smithsonian reconstruction example. The Government spends $100 million on new works for the Smithsonian. This requires construction contractors, who will hire construction workers. The construction work requires raw materials: lumber, concrete etc, providing expinditure in those supply industries. The construction workers drive trucks, which will need gas and maintenance, sustaining jobs in those other sectors. The construction workers eat food, which will sustain food outlets in the areas that construction happens. Once the work is done, many more contractors, organizers and staff will be required for new exhibitions, cleaning, transport etc. People will travel to the new exhibitions, using gas, buying food along the way, maybe staying in hotels, seeing other local attractions.

The objective of such stimulus packages is, on one hand, to provide support for failing infrastructure, and on the other, to trickle into the mainstream economy. It's purpose is not to directly resolve an issue relating to the economic crisis, but to stimulate business and industry more broadly.

I'll grant the validity of the Smithsonian spending, but only because that figure might not even be enough to cover things the Smithsonian hasn't been able to do for the last twenty years, but should have been. Letting that situation drag on would just rack up even more liabilities for the future.

But not a penny of that education money belongs in there.

What you're really arguing is trickle-down economics: if we spend money where people who are already well-off will get it, then those who aren't will end up with some -- because the only people who will be able to buy that gas and see those exhibits are the ones who are getting paid to do the work... and that will last only as long as they're getting paid for it.

and the problem doesnt seem to be with the amount of money circulating. the problem seems to lie with the management and expenses of businesses. if we just give out money, it doesnt change how the businesses run so we might just run into the same situation we are in now after the stimulus package runs out.

Precisely.
When Obama talked about spending on infrastructure, I cheered: sound infrastructure helps generate wealth. Bad roads cost people billions every year in auto repair, and inhibit the flow of commerce; good roads would keep money in people's pockets, and stimulate commerce. The same is true not just of transportation, but power, water, communications, and more.
It isn't true of federal control over education, or the arts. Those are like pouring wax on a fire as fuel -- it burns brightly while the wax lasts, but after it's colder than before.

Which side was really bipartisan? The winning side with no republicans or the losing side with 11 dems. Ms Nancy owns this one. I hope for the sake of the country Ms Nancy is right.

Bingo!

The losing side was the bipartisan side, the side showing unity and all.

 

[Kulindahr]

We've had unregulated capitalism and it was an absolute failure.

The rest of your points aren't impressive either.

What post are you talking about?

Certainly not mine.

 

[NickCole]

The Republicans voted the way they did to a great extent because the Democrats are like Alfie: they don't want unity, they don't want cooperation, they don't care about anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Including other Democrats.

I may be alone on this forum but I am not alone in America. Not all Democrats feel about Obama the way they do on this forum, and not all Democrats are comfortable with this stimulus bill. And Obama Democrats (or call them whatever you want) are intolerant of that and willing to toss us under the bus.

Obama showed that he'll listen -- but only to the ideas he's ready to schedule time for. He showed he'll compromise -- but only on the items he puts up as negotiable.

Actually he "compromised" on items Republicans successfully made a public stink about, like the "contraceptive" item. But he didn't, for example, jettison the $50 Million for National Endowment for the Arts or any of the huge allocation of "education" money. If family planning services aren't essential to keep in the bill but NEA money is and anti-smoking money is, what's the logic, right? It's only that Obama responds to what he thinks will harm him, nothing to do with principle and is totally reactionary.

In other words, he's shown in the handling of this package that while he may be a Democrat, he's not a democrat: he doesn't care about "we the people", he only cares about his people. That's why the package is stuffed full of goodies for Democrats, pork for his people, but nothing for Republicans.

Well I think the tax cuts, or at least a lot of them, are for Republicans. But, again, tax cuts are not going to stimulate the economy and they're not going to help people who're laid off land a job. He gives Republicans something that his own advisors say will not help accomplish what Obama says the bill is intended to accomplish. (And Republicans still don't vote for it! Great "bipartisan" work, there.) It's hundreds of billions of dollars of waste just like the $700 Billion bailout. Obama and Democrats are creating massively more debt, without stimulative effect, when one of our problems is too much debt. If this bill were truly rich in stimulative quality, that'd be a whole different story; but it is not. It's watered down and yet bloated with ineffective tax cuts.

Yeah, he brought change, all right -- a sharp turn toward one-party rule.

And the one-party is ObamaNation. Democrats who are not on board are going to be cut free just like Obama has done throughout his career to people who've been on the same side but were no longer useful to him.

If we're lucky, the Senate will sink this package and make him dump out all the partisan, non-stimulus content -- that'll leave maybe a third of what's there, a good foundation for a real unified effort.

Not going to happen. There's so much crap in that bill, and what's good is not potent enough, there's just too much that needs changing -- there's no way this Senate has the balls to oppose Obama so radically.

What's more likely is Obama further weakening the bill to get "bipartisan" support. Cuz, you know, that worked so well with the House.

 

[NickCole]

Right about what?

What.

She.

Said.

In.

That.

Clip!

 

[snapcat]

Maybe if you'd slap Alfie down for his constant baiting and taunting, it would help. He's back to his old habits of lowering the level of discourse in every thread he jumps into, spilling bile and despite every which way.

As a reminder, we don't make a habit of informing other users of disciplinary action directed toward anyone other than themselves.

If you see a post that violates the rules, it's safe to say that one of the 4 CE&P mods has addressed it. Of course sending in a bad post report helps.

 

[NickCole]

That's only part right. They know that the damage they've done will take quite a few years to fix and even if Obama's stuff works, it'll be years before it's really obvious. They're counting on doing that in 2010 & 2012 because they know how stupid the average voter is. If things don't get better immediately, the Republicans will swoop in like the vultures they are and say "See! He's all hot air! Give us our power back and we'll make sure we do the same thing we did the last time we had it!"

That's probably partly true (the part about how smarmy Republicans can be), but I disagree about a couple of things.

The main one is that we need a stimulus package that has powerful results both immediate (2009 and 2010) and long term. That's the reason I disapprove of the package, it won't achieve either of those results potently enough. There will be some small improvement but not enough to pull the economy back to a healthy enough state that it can get itself back on track. And if the immediate results aren't strong enough, the deteriorating elements of the economy will continue to pull it down. Results of this economic stimulus bill need to be potent enough that it's not "years before it's really obvious." Not that it won't take years to deal fully with all the problems involved, but results from a well conceived trillion dollar stimulus package should be really obvious to voters in one to two years. I fear that will not be the case because the package is not concise and focused enough.

 

[jackoroe]

There were 10 dims who voted against the bill as well. So, opposition to this pork barrel was actually bipartisan. Of course the Old Gray Rag doesn't report that small, but significant fact. I expected nothing less form the dinosaur media.

 

[justapixel]

I received this token in the mail yesterday. It basically sums up my feeling towards the stimulis bill

 

[NickCole]

There were 10 dims who voted against the bill as well. So, opposition to this pork barrel was actually bipartisan. Of course the Old Gray Rag doesn't report that small, but significant fact. I expected nothing less form the dinosaur media.

I'm no fan of the NYT at this point but at the top of the third paragraph:

All but 11 Democrats voted for the plan, and 177 Republicans voted against it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html?_r=1&hp

And although it may be technically bipartisan opposition, 11 Blue Dogs is not all that significant. Except we may expect to see ObamaNation back Democratic opponents to them in their next election. Opposition must be punished and removed.