What about the amendments they didn't feel were in the best interests of the country? How do those get removed or discussed?

Compromise.

The democratics did, the repubs didn't.

Really? Where? The whole bill was written by Pelosi.

The dems gave comprosises, Repubs were allowed a chance to put their voice in. Got some amendments, ect ect ect. Dems didn't stay staunch and keep the EXACT bill they wrote, they made changes to appease Repubs. Just wasn't good enough for the losers I guess.

More from the Demoncratic Wish List, none of which create jobs. Not that some of this does not need funding, but that is not what this bill was intended to do.

$335 million for education related to sexually transmitted diseases

"We have yet to hear any reasonable rationale for how this creates any jobs in the private sector," Paige tod "GMA."

$650 million for coupons to help people make the switch to digital TV

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$150 million for the Smithsonian Institution

$50 million for the National Cemetery Administration's monument and memorial repairs

$800 million for Amtrak, the country's railroad system

$2 billion for child-care subsidies

$400 million for global warming research

$100 million for reducing the danger of lead paint in homes

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$50 million for NASA facilities that may have been harmed by natural disaster

$200 million for the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor earthquakes and volcanoes

$650 million for the U.S. Forest Service to remove fish passage barriers, forest improvement and watershed enhancement projects

$1.5 million for a National Institute of Health/Institute of Medicine report to Congress

$50.6 million for services for older blind individuals

$400 million for the Social Security Administration's new National Computer Center

$325 million for Academic Achievement Awards

$70 million for programs to help people quit smoking

$75 million for a super-computer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Busin...6757733&page=1

I can see this one. I personally know a couple women who want to go back to work, and even have jobs they could take--but at a lower pay than the jobs they just lost, and the new lower rate won't cover the cost of childcare, so they're just staying home instead. Subsidizing their childcare costs would provide a job for the daycare worker, and allow the parents to get back in the workforce and be productive, at which point they will have more disposable income to spend at the retail stores, etc. etc.

All the rest though, not so much.

I think a lot of stuff can aid people going back to work. In fact a lot of the stuff will create jobs, but they would be very limited in scope as to their effects. Obama promised us hundreds of thousands of jobs, not a few hundred for IT people at NOAA or Stop Smoking cesation programs. Child care, eh, I definately would give you that one. The devil is in the details and so far no one knows what those are. Even those voting yes on them.

What is good for the goose, eh forget it, another tax doger nominated. Only the middle and upper income people should pay taxes, well unless you are a democratic nominee. I can't believe these guys are not better vetted. You shouldn't have to run out and pay your back taxes if you have been properly vetted in the first place, you should be off the short list.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.html

This was funny:

My New Spread the Wealth Grading Policy

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeS...grading_policy

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

This site helps drill down to some of the jobs being created, the cost, the project. Fairly interesting and informative stuff.

There is also http://www.recovery.gov/
its an Obama administration thing though, so I doubt it'll be very objective. Its still not yet up, not really anything for them to update it with.

I can barely trust any news site or site that claims to be "non-partisan", often many turn out to be owned or financed by Soro's or some Right-wing equivalent. I certainly would not trust a site hosted by Obama any more than most would trust info from a site hosted by Bush.

All things should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because you expect that some of the info is twisted doesn't mean it isn't insightful. You can learn, even from lies.

Exactly what amendments were made in the house bill that went to the floor for the vote - aside from killing the money for planned notparenthood?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_161654.html

So Obama got family-planning removed. What is wrong with family planning? Why is it a bad thing to help the mid and lower class from having children they can't afford and therefore keeping them off of welfare? Or from having to get more government support than they might already be on? I'm a big supporter of family-planning and I think that aiding it, no matter the economic situation, is always a benefit. I know Planned Parenthood was a big benefit to me, in fact my insurance was changed (b/c of the economy and co is saving money) and now is shitty and I'm probably goin to have to start using them again to get my birth control.
They got more tax cuts, which is a major thing they have been crying for.

So they want infastructure that is meaningful, impactful, and to get more jobs back? What was their plan for that? All I hear is whining over the democrats plan, no plan of their own.
To top it off, the democrat's plan has $550billion of the $800+billion dedicated to just that.
The dems are working more off of the Keynesian economic theory. The repubs want our natural entrepreneurship to save us.

I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base? If a person is frustrating, pigheaded and outright hostile to work with, are you going to work with them? No. I'm not saying that the republicans are all like this, but I can't help but think that dems are not the only ones with character flaws.
Maybe the republican voters should take another look at their republican representatives.

Nothing at all, but this is about saving our economy and putting people to work, not about social programs the Dems have been trying to pass for years and couldn't. This should not be a bill where special interest groups get to hop on the money train. I fully support family planning and free birth control for anyone who wants it. This does not create jobs as Obama and Pelosi promised.


Great, then save us 250 billion on the deficit and take out the crap social programs, save it for another bill. Whining? Please. The bill was completely crafted by Pelosi and the Demoncrats behind closed doors. They own everything in it that it does or fails to do to save our economy and create jobs as promised.

Yes, absolutely, because they completely control both houses and the executive branch. They own it. Everything that works and fails.

CIA's counter-terrorism rendition program gets nod from Obama
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Greg Miller in Washington
February 2, 2009

UNDER executive orders issued by the US President, Barack Obama, last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as "renditions", or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that co-operate with the United States.

Current and former US intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role because it was the main remaining mechanism - aside from Predator missile strikes - for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cia...423045649.html

Rendition is nothing new. Hopefully, the difference will be to do it legally, within acceptable international standards...like not sending a prisoner to a location where it is expected that he would be tortured or killed by the authorities of that country.

If Obama is going to close Gitmo...there will need to be some form of "rendition" of those prisoners...unless the plan is to hold them in US prisons or release them unconditionally, and neither option is under consideration.

The same Executive Order does specifically prohibit interrogation techniques that are defined as torture under our international treaty obligations.

True. But it was never exercised before like it was under Bush. Clinton authorized it as well but the cases were few and far between.

That is not what Obama has done in this act. That is a completely different subject. I do not believe that most of the inhabitants at Gitmo were placed there do to a rendition program under Bush.

Other executive orders have or will. The concept of "torture under our international treaty obligations" is a subject that has received much debate. Anyone claims to be able to define it is deluded.

If it is subject to debate, and I agree it is, it should be adjudicated by the judicial branch (even it it had to be in secret) and NOT determined by the DoJ attorneys who provided Bush with an interpretation that justified the actions.

Checks and balances!

Why? You think that the DOJ under Obama is not going to do the same thing and have their own interpretations about things. Hell, take a look at Janet Reno. There is a long running history and precident set, and it wasn't by Bush.

What did Reno do that was potentially illegal?

Bush took unilateral determination of matters of constitutional law to a new level on several fronts....with his interpretation of an AUMF to authorize anything remotely associated with his "war on terror" as "legal" being the most egregious.

Reno failed to name independent counsel to investigate campaign finance tactics of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Janet Reno refused three separate House committee requests in 1997 to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Democratic National Committee and presidential fund raising scandal, despite clear evidence of policies made by Bill Clinton in exchange for contributions.

She gave the orders to burn down a building with un-armed women and children in it in Texas. Janet Reno approved the CS military gas attack that led to the deaths of over 80 men, women and children who had never been charged with any crime.

She was a party to the murder of an unarmed woman holding a baby by the FBI. Janet Reno refused to support the conclusion of a Justice Dept. investigation that found an FBI sniper shot which killed Vicki Weaver was unconstitutional.

Janet Reno fired all 94 United States Attorneys, a move unprecedented in American history, shortly after her appointment in March 1993. She stated that the replacement of all U.S. Attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House. The liaison with the White House was the third highest ranking Justice Dept. official, associate attorney general, Webster Hubbell, who is now a convicted felon.

Janet Reno has refused a 1993 FBI investigation recommendation to prosecute Chuck Banks, the former Arkansas U.S. attorney who was to be tried for obstruction of justice for shutting down a federal drug investigation that implicated many people within the state and local governments. The investigation found compromised local judges and prosecutors, drug trafficking at Mena, money laundering through ADFA, suppression and distortion by the media and information about the murder of Kevin Ives and Don Henry as well as five other subsequent deaths.

Janet Reno filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in an attempt to support the claim by Bill Clinton that he should be shielded from the Paula Jones sexual harassment civil suit until he leaves office on the grounds that he is the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces.

The list goes on...

Reno authorized an FBI investigation that found no violations of law.

The call for a special prosecutor was purely political....much like the whole Whitewater fiasco and the Republican congressional investigation of the White House christmas card list, the firing of the WH travel office, and the Clinton's cat, socks.

There are two sides to these sad incidents.

All US attorneys are generally fired at the start of a new president's term.

In fact, Bush had every right to fire the US attorneys at any time....the issue was Gonzales lying to Congress about why they were fired...and the subsequent discovery that the Bush DoJ illegally used political "tests" for career (non-US attorney) appointments, particularly in the Civil Rights division.

I dont know a thing about this one.

I believe there was precedent to seek an opinion that civil actions against a president can be deferred until such time as the president becomes a private citizen.

Janet Reno fired William Sessions and replaced him with Louis Freeh on July 19, 1993, the day before the body of Vince Foster was found in Fort Marcy Park, Under Freeh, the FBI has entered the most incompetent, unaccountable period in its history as shown by these facts: - Louis Freeh promoted his close friend Larry Potts despite the assistant FBI director's responsibility for both the disastrous Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges - Freeh's FBI illegally gave Clinton Administration personnel over 900 files, including those on political adversaries.

I simply refuse to engage in any conspiracy discussion about Vince Foster.

I don't consider the facts surrounding the appointments as conspiracy theory. I don't support the notion that there was something else there other than obstruction.

MTP - I agree that much of the money being spent in this plan is for "worthy causes", but this is a STIMULUS BILL. The overwhelming intent, if not the entirety of this bill, as promised repeatedly, is to generate jobs and jumpstart the economy. At another time and under different circumstances, a bill like this would be wonderful. This is not a stimulus bill - thats the point we are debating here. Call it something else and the reaction would be very, very different. I'd be very interested to see the reaction if this bill was brought to the house under any other name.


Try looking at that statement without the labels Dem & Rep. I think that is a little more accurate. This has been going on for a long time and the party with a majority has always done this. The difference this time is that there is such an overwhelming disparity in the numbers of representatives from each party. The D's have virtually all the power right now and do not need the R's to pass anything. They have the power to do it all without them.

Regarding the last line - think of it this way. Isn't that the reason why the R's are in the minority? The voters did exactly that.

Of all the conspiracy theories about Clinton, that one is the dumbest.

And the most optimistic.

Hello! People! Spending IS stimulus! Why don't you get that?

Demoncratic talking point.

"Demoncratic"? :neutral:

The only way an economy grows is if people are spending money. If no one's prepared to spend, no one's making a profit.

If there is no confidence in the economy, those with money are going to keep it. The only ones spending will be the ones at the bottom of the scale who are too ignorant (no disrespect intended) to save. The economy need the general public, the middle and the wealthy to spend to survive and improve - period. No one disagrees on this. How to get this group to spend is the question. Talking the economy down and threatening certainly won't help.

People can't put off purchases forever. Eventually they have to start spending again. Usually that's when house prices drop so low that any old person can afford to buy one, so first off you have a whole new group of people buying houses which promotes growth in economic terms, but also in terms of labour. More jobs equals more spending equals more purchases equals more jobs etc etc etc. Inflation starts to rise and we all jump on the same merry go round again.

It's a cycle. It will correct itself eventually. Maybe some people will make wiser decisions next time round.

You don't always need the prettiest horse to get ahead. ;)

People are only spending on the bare necessities though. Housing price will probably continue to fall for another year or two. People may be able to afford them, but getting the loans has become a much more daunting task. I was speaking with a client who is in that field and he was explaining to me how much more paperwork and scrutiny the applicants are dealing with. I'm not really sure thats a bad thing either. Perhaps the banks shouldn't have loaned just anyone money.

I have begun to wonder how any of these plans are going to work. Be it tax cuts or massive spending. IIRC, The Soviet Union spent massively during the cold war and that didn't work out so well, nor did Japans plan to get out of it's issues a decade a go. They tried to spend their way out and that failed.

Well, from my personal experience, the first place I bought which was about 15 years ago, we paid $85k for a lowset 3 bedroom brick and tile on a 700 square metre block and had to have 10% deposit, which was really no big deal at that price. That was at the bottom of the market after the recession we had in the early 90's. We had to have lots of stuff to qualify for the loan, but it was simple because the main criteria was the deposit and a steady job. Shortly after we purchased that house, the market started to improve and we sold it for over 30k more than we paid for it. (that was handy because the reason we sold it was because our relationship fell apart) House prices continued to increase and even today when prices have slumped slightly, you'd pay about 400k for that house, maybe slightly less, but it'll drop way more.

Banks here are already moving from low documentation home loans to full documentation home loans, and the days of 100% mortgages are pretty much over.

Yes, but if people don't have jobs, then they can't buy houses, or anything else. Apparently, right now the only way to save jobs, or to create them, is the federal government. Sad, I know, but corporate America certainly isn't hiring.

There's a lot further to go down before anyone starts going up again. In the mean time, people will simply do the best they can with what's on offer. The fact that no one will have money is exactly why house prices will drop. Eventually they will get to a level that even low income earners can afford, and then the market will start to pick up.

In many ways, these stimulus packages that the US and Australian governments are offering are really just a bandaid cure for the inevitable. It's too late to stop what must happen now.

Well, I agree, somewhat, but I also think the stimulus, in the right form (spending), will keep the recession from going as deep and as long as it would if we do nothing, IF they spend enough. We are losing more than a half million jobs a month. Something needs to be done about that. The private sector isn't doing anything, they are cutting jobs. The only option left is government.

Why do so many people think government has no role in anything? Personally, I'm an anarchist, so I don't like a lot of government interference in my personal life. But IMHO, this is one of the roles government actually should play.

That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Me 2

I know what it means. And if it were possible to have a country with no government, that would be awesome.

Yeah. I like your shit. So I'll kill you and take it. Or maybe just enslave you. What happens to your family is up to my whim. Or the whim of someone even more fucked in the head than I am.

That's anarchy. Ain't it just AWESOME?

That is not anarchy nor is it the thinking of an anarchist. You talk out of both sides of your mouth if that is what you really think. You hail the efforts of Obama and the Demoncratic tax and spend plan but yet you say you want to keep government out of your life. You can't have it both ways and you certainly can't think that Obama and the currently Demoncratically controlled congress is going to conduct operations that are designed to stay out of the life of the population. That is not their plan.

Well, I'm not saying the government shouldn't help its people. What I'm saying is, it really wont matter in the long run.

This current freight train to financial hell has to run its course cause someone forgot to fix the brakes.

In a truly anarchistic society, the people would not allow that to happen. They would make their own laws, and punishment. But, that is also why it won't work. People are not capable of that kind of society, yet, at least not on a large scale.

I want government out of MY life, as long as I'm not doing harm to another. I think business needs to be heavily regulated though.

And I would prefer government NOT have to spend to get us out of this mess. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is any longer an option, if we want to lessen the effects of the recession.

Then we'll file it with "True Communism", "The Free Market", and all the other political utopian myths.

And hey, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean one can't aspire to those principles. Most of the people I know are what you would call socialist anarchists.

Yeah, I know how they feel, being a reptillian mammal.

Perhaps you need to get out more? :rolleyes:

hey, I happen to like those people. :D You probably would too if you knew them.

...orrrr... maybe not.

Transparency? It sure is change.

http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/03...ings-done.html

Boortz. :lol:

Why think for yourself, when pundits can do it for you?

You can't find out what is going on inside Washington if you don't read what others report. You can choose not to read it and look like the large bird with your head stuck in the sand. I choose to read it and learn what is going on from those in the know. I form my own opinions about it's impact.

Opinion is not "reporting", whether it be Boortz, Rhodes, Limbaugh, or Olbermann.

Its important to distinguish between "those in the know" who attempt to report objectively and "those in know" who attempt to pass off their opinion as factual.

To only read those with whom you might have a preconceived affinity is self-limiting.

The more sources and perspectives one reads, the more informed one becomes.

Absolutely. And I will keep an eye on the report that Obama plans to use this tactic with the Dems in Congress to pass their plans. So far I have no reason to believe they will not do so.

hmpft. After all the years and years and years of deregultion and tax cuts that benefit mainly the top percentage of the wealthy, we need some way to get things done, when we have a bunch of republicans who are bent on saying no to everything. jesus.

Listen to this interview Fareed Zacharia did with Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator of the Financial Times:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes....wolf.intv.cnn

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f...077b07658.html