Anyone else annoyed that not one Republican in the House voted for the stimulous package?

They were listening to Rush Limbaugh. I heard him on the radio the other day saying that the only way to regain their followers and their dignity was to vote as one against the package. Sheep

Disgusted

I’m pretty annoyed.. I’m also annoyed at what that fat idiot said. Everytime I hear his name a rush of anger comes over me.

Lurve for the pun Krysta

@peyton_farquhar – Haha, I didn’t even realize that! Lurve to you! :D

Rush Limbaugh stimulus (stimulant) package = Jar of Oxycontin.

I’m not really annoyed by it…and I can almost understand why they all voted against it. They passed one already, and it didn’t have that much effect. They’re the small guys now when it comes to passing anything through, so why not make them (the democrats) work as hard as they can to get anything done. When inevitably anything the democrats wanted passed will more than likely pass..it’s not like the republicans are going to be rewarded for assisting them at all ya know?

I don’t think it’s because they’re wimps, or they enjoyed the past 8 years, but rather to spite the democrats.

I almost look at it like…you’re about to play a game against someone, and the outcome has already been determined, so why even try?...even if they all together vote against it, it’s still going to pass.

@AstroChuck – LOL! My side hurts from laughing too much!!

@AC Congratulations on passing the 12K mark! Many more.

@Marina- Is that you? I didn’t recognize you there. What the Hell do you think you’re doing? You most certainly didn’t need a facelift!

The $825 billion stimulus package has nothing to do with liking the past 8 years or not. The goal of this stimulus package should be to generate more jobs, right? Will the $37 billion proposed for expanding broadband access and converting medical records to electronic form generate jobs? No infact it could decrease jobs. Will the $150 billion being spent to double the dept of educations budget increase jobs? Maybe, but likely nothing significant. What about the $6 billion to restore the Jefferson Memorial and for family planning? No job creation. What about the $5 billion to help people stop smoking? This will likely decrease jobs in healthcare and cigarette factories.

This package is ridiculous and filled with bullcrap provisions giving money to things that will not stimulate the economy. I’m stoked the republicans voted against it. This bill needs to be denied. In fact this is just more of the crap Bush was putting through the past 8 years under a different name.

I’m hella annoyed. They’re willing to vote for a $700 billion bail-out to assholes (NOT A REPUBLICAN MOVE AT ALL, MIGHT I ADD. What ever happened to conservative spending?), but they won’t vote to fund something that’s meant to create jobs? I think they’re just pouting and trying very, very hard to make Obama fail.

@RandomMrdan That’s exactly why I hate bipartisan politics. It’s not a game. It’s not about who wins or loses. When they play games like that, it’s the American people who suffer. I can’t believe we stand for that behavior. Representatives are elected to represent our voice. I want my representative to vote in a way that he thinks will benefit our district, regardless of what his party wants.

@AstroChuck Well, in another thread, the youth movement was chuffing me about never changing my avatar (I don’t think they believed me when I said that I had rarely.) so I tried on a change.

Secret: I still like my original one best, but have never been able to look at the same way since someone (maybe uberbatman or eambos, I can’t remember) said it looked like a ninja.

It is APPALLING the way that the Republicans are playing games! I am glad to see how much they care about the middle class! Seems that they had NO PROBLEM whatsoever giving 700 BILLION dollars to the banks with no oversight in place to make sure that it was being used correctly and effectively. It is makes my stomach turn and my blood boil. Thay are a bunch of obnoxious, self rightious, jerks!

Hey I offered my wife the stimulus package last night, and she rolled over and told me to get to sleep!

a) Fuck the Republicans. By 2010 they probably won’t have measurable influence anyway.

b) The “problems” (for us, I mean) go a step or two beyond either stimulus package and will take more than money to fix. Without some political and economic change of heart on the global stage, we’re just playing the same shell game for higher stakes.

Stephen Colbert noticed

and so did Nate Silver of 538.com

Wow @critter1982, you couldn’t be more wrong. I thought, in fact, for a moment that you were being sarcastic.

Will spending $20 billion on modernizing public schools create jobs? Um, yes. Who will repaint the walls? Who will build the new science lab? Who will install the new broadband access in every room? Who will supply the cement that is needed? Who will design the new gymnasium?

Will $30 billion for highway construction create jobs? Who will be doing the paving, the designing, the hauling, the safety checks, the engineering, the transport of materials?

Will $87 billion in aid to states create jobs? Actually, probably not…but it will save jobs. Nearly every state in the union is facing a budget shortfall right now. States, unlike the federal government, aren’t able to run large deficits. The only way to meet that budget gap is to lay people off. Without aid to the states, we’d see huge layoffs of public employees. You may not like the fact that there are public employees, but you can’t deny that the last thing we need right now is more layoffs.

Is every penny in the $825 billion plan perfectly targeted? No. Is the vast majority of it good enough to make a measurable difference? Yes. It is parrot talking points about tiny provisions that, on the surface, don’t appear to make sense? You betcha.

@kevbo a) I can’t see what purpose that would serve.

Since the bill was going to pass without any Republican votes anyway, it was safer to go along with the party leadership. All the Republicans have is unity and anyone who breaks ranks can expect party discipline.

A moderate Republican is really not threatebed by the Democrats, they may need him at some point and it supports the idea of bipartisanship by not attacking GOP mods.

If Obama is doing well in 2010, a mod Rep will have plenty of time to support popular legislation. If we are still in economic difficulty then he can say-see, I told you so.

However if he supports Obama, he can lose his own party’s financial support in 2010 or even find the party supporting another candidate,

Uh… what?

kevbo
Nothing good can come from f#$%ing a Republican-worst case scenario, bringing more into the world. If you have to have one. adopt from a shelter. Don’t encourage breeding.

I think im more annoyed that not everyone would vote against this terrible idea

Oh. I get it. ;-)

Good thing (white) men can’t have babies out of their butts.

Republicans Are so fraking 2-faced, it’s unbelievable. Republicans giving $700 billion to their rich buddies – oh that’s awesome! Democrat stimulous package to fix 8 years of carnage in social services and programs for the middle-class -oh that’s so evil!

Frak the frakin’ republicans. You’d have to be brain dead to listen to anything they say at this point. Their failed policies have destroyed America. Let’s just hope something can be salvaged.

I think the real issue here is that there are almost no moderate Republicans left in the Senate. Those that were in more centrist districts were pushed out for Democrats which means that the ones remaining are the hard line ones who represent hard line districts.

@Michael: Of course if you spend almost a trillion dollars you’re going to create jobs somewhere, it’s inevitable. We are so far in debt already why do we think its acceptable to spend billions of dollars on crap that’s not going to improve our falling economy. It’s bullshit porkbarrel spending. Don’t the politicians realize that we don’t have $1 trillion to spend? Don’t they realize we are going to either print this money or borrow it from China or Saudi Arabia? This bill is bogus along with everyother bill that has been passed to stimulate the economy. Let it work itself out.

@critter1982 Yes, they realize that this is money that will be borrowed. But as you said yourself, this spending is going to create jobs. More jobs means more economic activity. More economic activity means growth. Growth means higher tax revenues (even without raising taxes) which we can use to pay down that debt over time.

Think of it this way. You’re 18 years old, and you are a pretty good student, but you have no money for college. You have essentially two options. One, you can skip college because you don’t want to borrow the $100,000 it would take to pay tuition, room and board, expenses, etc, and start working now. Two, you can borrow the money, and go to college. Sure, option two puts you into debt, but your lifetime earnings will rise, leaving you better of in the long run.

Not all debt is bad debt. Using your credit card to buy a $5,000 TV when you only make $1,000 a month? Bad debt. Taking out a $5,000 loan to buy a car so you can get to your new, higher-paying job full of advancement opportunities? Good debt.

Spending $100 billion on tax cuts for people who are already well-off and won’t increase their economic output with a few more bucks in their pocket? Bad debt. Spending $100 billion to improve highways and schools which will both put people to work immediately and improve economic efficiency and productivity in the long-term? Good debt.

So much for co-operation.

@Michael: We obviously have 2 fundamental differences in our beliefs. You think government going into debt in an “attempt” to get us out of this recession/depression/economic downturn whatever you want to call it, is good debt. You don’t seem to care what they spend it on? I’m confused why nobody cares that a stimulus package (which Obama has stated was designed to create jobs) has billions of dollars of pork barrel spending. My fundamental belief is that we should let this work itself out without government intervention. History proves that the economy will come back to where it is “supposed” to be. The economy always acts like a giant pendulum, swinging from under valuation to over valuation, deflation to inflation, paper assets to hard assets. When you pour billions of dollars into an economy you generate inflation. Now hyperinflation not statistically a big issue currently could be one. Second, the bill is too big. Increases in the deficit and claims that the deficit is too high will inevitable lead to tax increases. You have slower growth, higher inflation, and higher taxes all of which are bad for for economic growth. I could care less about “good” debt and “bad” debt. Leveraging in this economy could lead to worse things than what we define as good and bad debt.

Your argument might have some merit if the government was consistent—but it isn’t. No big complaints when the bailout goes to banks that then take million dollar junkets. Big complaints when the fix aims at people getting jobs to fix roads, schools, etc (can that really be the pork you are talking about?). The problem is big—it takes courage to try and fix it, and all I see is frightened Republicans who are shirking their responsibilities.

Your absolutely wrong. My argument has nothing to do with the boneheads in DC. I complained when they tried to pass the first stimulus plan and I’ll complain as they try to pass this one. The particular pork barrel spending I am referring to is the program for new govt. cars, global warming studies, and $1 billion for the US consensus, honeybee insurance, rehabilitating ATV trails, etc, etc, etc. The other problem is the focus on education, universal health care, and social services. It’s a flippin stimulus package which should be designed to “immediately stimulate” the economy. It doesn’t take any courage for government officials to pass this plan. It takes courage to actually try generatea plan focused on the name “stimulus”, without outspending our national debt.

With the still open possibility of Medicare becoming insolvent by the time I retire, I’m all for exploring universal health care.

It works for oh, most other developed countries in the world. As a Canadian I’m consistently astonished at the HMO horror stories I hear from my American friends.

I’m not arguing for or against universal health care. I’m arguing the fact that it shouldn’t be placed in an economic stimulus package. Democrats know republicans are against universal health care yet they still claim to be attempting bipartisanship with this bill. A bill designed to create jobs not further President Obama’s agenda for universal health care.

Sorry didn’t mean to derail this thread of argument. I didn’t mean to endorse the vote on the stimulus package. Even as a very strong left-wing idealist I’m having difficulty believing that this will concretely help the economy in the long-term.

@critter1982 It has become increasingly clear to me that you have not actually read what it is the package (my guess is you’ve gotten your idea about what’s in there from a talk show host or a conservative blog). There is nothing in any version of the bill that includes anything even remotely similar to a universal healthcare proposal.

That’s true critter.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/economy/stimulus_101/index.htm

@Michael:

Quote from Obama: “Allowing workers who lose jobs that did not come with insurance benefits to be eligible, for the first time, to apply for Medicaid coverage.”

So what happens when you take, as the saying goes, “regular Americans” whose jobs have been lost to the recession and put them into a government-provided coverage program like Medicaid? At a bare minimum, they’ll realize coverage through Medicaid is no worse than what they had (or didn’t have) through their job. In a best-case scenario, they’ll be reluctant to give it up when they’re back on their feet. It’s a “systemic change”.

It’s a great first step for the democratic party in defining a Universal health care coverage in America.

@critter1982 I realize that I am not going to change your mind. You have been told that this stimulus package is bad, and you believe that. Fine.

However, I do not want to leave anyone else under the mistaken impression that what you have written has any basis in fact. The stimulus package does include a provision to extend medicaid eligibility, temporarily, to workers who lose their jobs and who did not have employer sponsored health insurance before. It also has a provision that will extend aid to workers who lost their jobs but did have insurance so that they can continue to pay for their COBRA coverage.

One. This doesn’t even come close to universal health coverage. We’re talking about three, maybe four million people. That’s a lot, granted, but that will still leave about 35 million people without health insurance. Hardly universal.

Two. I cannot say that I blame “regular Americans,” as you put it, for preferring Medicaid to no coverage at all. Do you have any grandparents? They are on government sponsored health care (its called Medicare). Ask them how it works for them. 99 out of 100 seniors wouldn’t give up their government sponsored health care for anything.

Three. There are sound economic reasons for expanding health coverage in a time of recession. Illness, injury and disease have large societal costs. These costs are multiplied when care is delivered inefficiently. Using the emergency room as primary care is extraordinarily inefficient. If a worker loses her job, the best way to ensure that she is unable to find a new one is to let her fall ill with no recourse.

For a good article elucidating further this argument, check out Frank Rich in todays (Sunday’s) New York Times: here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01rich.html?emc=eta1

Critter let’s examine your logic. The ‘average American’ will find that tax paid coverage is as good (or better) than the coverage by for profit insurance companies so they prefer tax paid coverage. And that is bad because——?? If the govt can provide better, more efficient, more accessible, more equitable healthcare and the majority of us want it, why not have it. The only downside is the loss of jobs to insurance company execs whose income is tied to denying coverage.

Why are you afraid that Americans will find universal coverage is a good thing? By the way the Stimulus Bill extends COBRA coverage, it does not offer Medicaid to someone just because he becomes unemployed.

Our government needs to stop bleeding cash. I agree with the move. Our country will fold like the USSR did due to overspending.

The government has to make the right choices about how money is spent then it is less likely we will have to worry about the OVERspending. Stop spending on forcing our values on others at the point of a gun and we will be able to ‘promote the general welfare’ here at home.

@galileogirl: I’m not afraid Americans will find universal coverage to be a good thing. If that’s the way this country is going to go I absolutely hope it’s better than what we have now. The problem with the plan is that you get dead beats bloodsucking from the system. You get these people with better healthcare coverage than those with jobs.

My point was not about healthcare coverage. It’s about the fact that this “stimulus” package has a lot to do about not stimulating the economy. I still don’t understand why everyone is for this bill. Do we all really believe that the only way to solve this problem is to spend $1 Trillion?

It’s not that we are just tossing out money—it’s figuring out tactics to make jobs and long term investments that will end up getting the economy moving. If we don’t do it, we all lose a lot more than a trillion dollars.

We will always have deadbeats bloodsucking the system. I personally feel that deadbeats getting free antibiotics so they don’t spread disease preferable to deadbeat Merrill Lynch execs etal getting govt subsidized bonuses for damaging the economy.

We don’t call R.L. Douche Loosebowels around here for nothing. The man is a complete waste of skin.

The stimulus is worth crap…did the last stimulus help us? Apparently not, because look at where we are now. We’d just have to end up paying for it in the future anyways…of course these morons in charge keep encouraging people to spend, spend, spend…our very spending is what is making all these fraudulent bankers richer! The more you spend, the higher credit card balance you have, the more fees the bankers can charge (for late payments, higher interest rates, etc). Unfortunately because of all the fraud and greed committed by wall street and investments banks, etc (who all deserve to be in jail) that created a surge in prices over the last decade, we still NEED the economy to fall if we ever want the economy to stabilize again. and then we can go through it all over again…so that a few (wall street, investors, bankers) can be rich, while the majority suffer. It is so sad that these few people getting rich while so many others suffer can actually live with themselves. What happened to honesty and compassion?

@daqmart Please definne “the last stimulus” Do you mean the raining of cash by the Bush administration on merchant banks without conditions. Do you mean the 10 yr stimulous package for arms and war-related contractors paid 100’s of $bllions in Iraq playing drunken cowboys, raping and murdering among the population and building substandard facilities that electrocuted American soldiers?

How do you equate that with an attempt to jump start industry while cleaning up the environment by reducing emissions. How does that equate with encouraging home purchases so that 1/8 of the homes don;t go into foreclosure and blighting neighborhoods across America.

The prior administration was dealing with a forest fire by carpet bombing everything within a 100 mile radius. By the way, they lit the match) The current stimulus package is attacking specific flare ups. It may be harder and may take a while longer but they aren’t obliterating everything in three states

Stimulus packages just deter the economy’s recovery even longer. It’s just a short-term fix…what we need is a fall in prices in the economy. Unfortunately ALL of us, especially the poor and middle-class though, are going to have to suffer (not just the people who bought homes in the peak of the market, who now owes twice as much on their home than it’s worth, or who don’t own their home anymore because they couldn’t keep up with the rising mortgage payments, or they lost their job). Just because I was pre-approved for an 850,000 home doesn’t mean that I am going to go out and buy a home for that much though, because I know that I can’t afford a home for that much! I have the same dream that all of the other people who bought homes that probably most of them knew they couldn’t afford (though I don’t doubt there was a lot of deceit in the way the loan documents were explained by the lenders, so it seemed like they could afford the loan, but they really couldn’t). I live in a tiny little old home with a tiny kitchen and tiny bathroom with no bath tub, and both my husband work really hard in our jobs with a decent income, but we still can’t afford a decent home (well, according to my mortgage loan rep, we can afford a really nice home for 850k, but, I know better than to fall for that one…) because prices are still so darn expensive (I live in Marin county though, which is a richy area) for me to feel comfortable with what my monthly mortgage payments would be. I definitely think the environment needs to be cleaned up though. But I don’t think that all of the people who didn’t buy homes even though they could have gotten a loan for it, and even though they really would have loved to have a nicer, bigger home to live in, should have to pay for all of the people who did get the big loan to buy their big dream home and were living beyond their means. We need the economy to fall so that middle class hardworking people can afford a nice home without a huge loan that is beyond our means. I still don’t agree with what the mortgage banks did though, with writing all of these dishonest loans (and getting people into dishonest investments). But I guess people with do anything for money and power these days.