Questions About The Senate Stimulus Bill
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on February 6th, 2009 in Bad Dems, Congressional Man Date, EconomyWill it come up for a vote in the Senate today?
Or will the Ben Nelson and Susan Collins (R, ME) so-called centrist group of Senators end up pushing the vote to Sunday?
How many Republican votes will be needed to get to the magic number of 60?
Will Al Franken suddenly be seated some time today?
Is Ted Kennedy going to be able to make it for the vote?
Is Mary Landrieu (D, LA) going to reprise her February 3 vote, when she was the only Democrat to vote against an amendment which came up short by two votes, an amendment to add $25 billion in infrastructure investment to the bill (for such frivolous unnecessities as highways, mass transit, and water projects)?
Will Susan Collins vote for the bill or will her bruised ego get in the way?
Will Ben Nelson vote for the bill or will he decide he’d much rather see the economy go over the cliff?
Will the Collins-Nelson group suddenly be blessed with the insight that every single one of the items they are hell-bent on cutting out of the bill (as per their $90 billion list of cuts) “truly helps stimulate the economy” a lot more than the tax cuts they are determined to leave in?
Will Tom Coburn (R, OK) come up with some inventive maneuver at the last minute to block the bill for at least a month?
Will President Obama realize in time that maybe “The economy is doomed unless you pass a package of about $800 billion, any package of about $800 billion!” is not quite the right message to be sending?
Will the members of this august deliberative body have a last-minute epiphany and suddenly put country above obstructionist party and/or personal agendas, and take the economy out of the handbasket it is currently in (before it reaches its current destination), and pass the bill by something like 79 to 19?
Or will a majority of the members of the Senate — in keeping with the quality of the debate so far — suddenly realize that it’s far better to scrap the bill altogether and just give every person in the U.S. a million dollars, seeing as how a million dollars each for 300 million people would only be $300 billion?
Is “august deliberative body” already thoroughly out-dated as a description of the Senate?
Will our hapless media start calling a spade a spade, and stop whitewashing Republican obstructionism with statements like “The Democrats will need the support of at least two Republicans and probably more to win passage of the stimulus bill, which for procedural reasons will require 60 votes.”?
Is Mitch McConnell (R, KY) even capable of realizing that the question of “the appropriateness of an almost $1 trillion spending bill to address the problem” is best decided by economists rather than witch-doctors or Joe-the-Plumber-War-Correspondent-Economic-Analyst?
*** Update, 8:09 a.m. ***
Encouraging news. “Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the GOP is ready to support a bill….” No, wait. He added: “but we will not support an aimless spending spree that masquerades as a stimulus.” What he may as well have added: “And we will portray every version of the stimulus bill as an aimless spending spree, so there!”
As Major League Baseball used to say a few years ago: “What a game!”
w. jewell wrote:
This jerk can’t even add. 300 million americans would only get $1.00 each if they 300 million away.
See stupid comment in above blog.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 7:46 am ¶
John wrote:
Why don’t these people get it? Give the money to the Taxpayers not Corporate America. Those who suffer the sacrifice of lost jobs due to the failures that would occur, at least would have a huge nest egg of funds to look for a career change.
It is inevitable that pumping money back in will not work. So why not give it to the taxpayer and let him/her decide how to spend our hard earned money
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 7:49 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 1: If by “this jerk” you mean me, you might try clicking on that link first, dummy.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 7:57 am ¶
Heather wrote:
Just two comments. It seems to me that Obama means that Republicans are supposed to give a little and Democrats are supposed to keep a lot!
The other comment I have is about ethics. I find it interesting that there is so much boo-hoo when companies do what companies always do, spnsor events or such as advertizing, but now this is attacked because they got tax payer bail out money.
Yet, didn’t these Democrats just go off to a resort to have a meeting about their stimulus plan? Didn’t Obama just fly a private goverment jet to that resort meeting? All on the tax payers expense?
What did they do at this resort, that they could not have done right there in Washington DC?
It seems they are so willing to label others spending as wasteful, but justify their own!
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:03 am ¶
Fatima wrote:
My question is this: where were these GOP seators when Bush asked money in 10s of billions for Iraq I didn’t see them making any issue of it. We can always go over the roll call of the senate and see their voting history when funding for the war in Iraq.
Eg:
Sen. Susan Collins:
5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics. (yes)
May 4, 2008
70 B
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:03 am ¶
cbuck wrote:
They are all missing the big picture. Stop the bleeding by stopping the foreclosures. Tax payers equity in their homes are burning up ,while those idiots in Washington are fiddling away.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:04 am ¶
T Miller wrote:
OK Why aren’t the Senators/House Reps listening to their constituents?? We are telling them NO to the bail out –We get it anyway. We are saying no to this Stimulus package -and it looks like its going to be passed through.
We need to wake up and throw out every Republican and Democrat and start from scratch, that includes Mr. Obama..he is already way off his campaign promises has anyone seen a right or left winger move so center so fast??
As for the foreclosure too damn bad, you screwed up thats it why should those who live in their means now help those fools who over extended themselves stay in their homes?? Thats not right. I do feel bad for those losing their homes because they are out of work but for those who over spent tough !!! Foreclose and move on.
The other problem especially in NY where I live is the school taxes –out of hand raises every year with less and less services why?? Illegal immigrant children are allowed to FREELY attend our schools. This needs to be ended or else there will be an outflux of people from NY, LI.
Why should us HONEST Americans continue to support illegal immigrants? Especially now with the economy in a terrific downward spiral.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:26 am ¶
T Miller wrote:
OK Why aren’t the Senators/House Reps listening to their constituents?? We are telling them NO to the bail out –We get it anyway. We are saying no to this Stimulus package -and it looks like its going to be passed through.
We need to wake up and throw out every Republican and Democrat and start from scratch, that includes Our new President..he is already way off his campaign promises has anyone seen a right or left winger move so center so fast??
As for the foreclosure too damn bad, you screwed up thats it why should those who live in their means now help those fools who over extended themselves stay in their homes?? Thats not right. I do feel bad for those losing their homes because they are out of work but for those who over spent tough !!! Foreclose and move on.
The other problem especially in NY where I live is the school taxes –out of hand raises every year with less and less services why?? Illegal immigrant children are allowed to FREELY attend our schools. This needs to be ended or else there will be an outflux of people from NY, LI.
Why should us HONEST Americans continue to support illegal immigrants? Especially now with the economy in a terrific downward spiral.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:28 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 7, 8: that’s all you can find to rant about? Come on, surely you can do better than that?
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:30 am ¶
T Miller wrote:
Sorry Sarabeth…Its just a very immediate problem that doesn’t seem to be addressed. the Stimulus proposed by the House was basically a Nancy Pelosi Stimulus package it was almost everything she wanted. I am sick and tired of the Government not listening to the people but to the lobbyists ( yes they still do even though our President says its not allowed) I suppose you are one of the well off people Sarabeth and don’t want to rock the boat.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:38 am ¶
NY'er wrote:
Why did we “save” the banks in the first place when they were the ons that created this mess? Oh yes, we can sae the millioairs but not the working middle class. How foolish of me!
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:45 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
How is it possible for anyone to have everything so ass-backwards as T Miller?
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 8:46 am ¶
JohnRJ08 wrote:
Actually, if the government gave every family in America $1 million, it would be considerably less than $200 billion because there’s a lot less than 150 million families out there. Even if you also gave $1 million to unmarried tax-payers with no dependents, the sum would still be less than $200 billion. Not a bad idea, if you think about it. Most people would probably pay off their mortgages and credit card debt, and have money left over to invest and buy things. Lenders would be awash in cash, and the real estate market would explode. Then the government would still have a couple of hundred billion to use on infrastructure projects, etc. Anyway, it’s fun to think about, but it’s not going to happen.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 9:16 am ¶
grammarsoft wrote:
My greatest concern is corporations using the bailout monies to acquire other small companies in order to gain share holder values and then conduct layoffs on employees that had there company acquired. Such is the case when Pfizer acquired Wyeth. 20,000 employees cut and all with taxpayers money. Stimulus bill you at least chunkier portions should go towards families with healthy credit because this would indicate ‘conscious’ spending and help them in avoiding foreclosures.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 9:23 am ¶
Jimmy wrote:
My party (The Republican Party) caused this problem over the last 8 years and with congressial control for 6 of these years. These same policies on the economy and their full support of the president programs led us to were are today. the American people have decided they want something different. Let the president try a different policies to stinulus the country. If do not, in 4 years he can point to Republicans as blocking change and gain more congressal seat and the office agian. And there will be NO REPULICAN PARTY. Lets not follow McCain and the other Congressman who caused the problem to begin with.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 9:26 am ¶
Matt wrote:
It would seem that our Republican senators and congressmen were/are more worried about saving Iraq than saving America.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 9:28 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Re 13, I didn’t say “every family in America” or “every family in America + unmarried tax-payers with no dependents”. I said “every person in the U.S.”.
And if you click on that “would only be $300 billion” link, you might be able to straighten out your billions and trillions, and get the point of that question.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 9:35 am ¶
Nan wrote:
National Economic Disaster, means we need to build our military to rebuild our nation through wind, solar, and nuclear energy. Start building or redesigning our plants that we need to provide clean energy with the resources we have!
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 4:12 pm ¶
Sebastian wrote:
The government is too big. Too many people allowed to go on national media spilling their nonsense ideas and confusing the masses.Where did all those experts come from? They all seem to have a perfect solution for the problem. Stimulus is good … and 2 min later .. stimulus is bad , bla bla bla WTF?? Wake up people!
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
Sebastian wrote:
The only stimulus America needs is a stimulus to the mind to wake up the common sense.
Posted 06 Feb 2009 at 5:56 pm ¶
Lionel Edwards wrote:
Mitch McConnell is not really a name I have heard of before. I am still, kind of, confused what he is going to do exactly as an analyst/plumber.
Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
If you haven’t heard of Joe the Plumber or Mitch McConnell, then very little of this post or this blog will probably make sense to you.
If it helps, you can always google both guys.
A news.google.com search for Joe the Plumber should help to clarify the reference in the post.
Posted 07 Feb 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶