55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:02 pm
@ican711nm,
A laundry list of boondoggles, ican.

I read this morning that part of the bill is to reward buyers of motorcycles and RVs as well as cars and trucks. That brought a laugh, because I thought we were supposed to build green cars, electric cars, what are they doing encouraging us to buy gas guzzling RV's!!!!!! The answer of course is to buy votes from Indiana where the RV's are built. Hypocrites, all of them.

Maybe its time to go out and buy a Harley?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 03:15 pm
Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_stimulus;_ylt=A0oGktz6MZdJYjsB_TxrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGlxBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--
Savoring win, Obama celebrates `major milestone'
...
WASHINGTON " Savoring his first big victory in Congress, President Barack Obama on Saturday celebrated the newly passed $787 billion economic stimulus bill as a "major milestone on our road to recovery."

Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said, "I will sign this legislation into law shortly, and we'll begin making the immediate investments necessary to put people back to work doing the work America needs done."

At the same time, he cautioned, "This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning. The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task."

The bill passed Congress on Friday on party-line votes, allowing Democratic leaders to deliver on their promise of clearing the legislation by mid-February. Obama could sign the measure as early as Monday.

"It will take time, and it will take effort, but working together, we will turn this crisis into opportunity and emerge from our painful present into a brighter future," the president said.

Obama "now has a bill to sign that will create millions of good-paying jobs and help families and businesses stay afloat financially," said Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat who was a leading architect of the measure.

"It will shore up our schools and roads and bridges, and infuse cash into new sectors like green energy and technology that will sustain our economy for the long term," he added in a statement.

Hours earlier, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell offered a different prediction for a bill he said was loaded with wasteful spending.

"A stimulus bill that was supposed to be timely, targeted and temporary is none of the above," he said in remarks on the Senate floor. "And this means Congress is about to approve a stimulus that's unlikely to have much stimulative effect."

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in the GOP radio address Saturday, contended Democrats settled "on a random dollar amount in the neighborhood of $1 trillion and then set out to fill the bucket."

Obama, who was spending the weekend in Chicago, planned to fly back to Washington on Monday. His schedule for the week ahead includes trips to Denver on Tuesday to talk about his economic agenda and a visit to Phoenix on Wednesday to present a plan to fight foreclosures.

In a struggle lasting several weeks, lawmakers in the two political parties both emphasized they wanted to pass legislation to revitalize the economy and ease frozen credit markets. But the plan that the administration and its allies eventually came up drew the support of only three Republicans in Congress " moderate Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Their support was critical, though, in helping the bill squeak through the Senate on a vote of 60-38, precisely the number needed for passage. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown cast the 60th vote in favor in a nearly deserted Senate, hours after the roll call began. He arrived after a flight aboard a government plane from Ohio, where he was mourning the death of his mother earlier in the week.

The House vote was 246-183.

The legislation, among the costliest ever considered in Congress, provides billions of dollars to aid victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more. Tens of billions are ticketed for the states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments, and there is more than $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail.

Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.

In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs.

Also included were funds for two of Obama's initiatives, the expansion of computerized information technology in the health care industry and billions to create green jobs the administration says will begin reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Friday's events capped an early period of accomplishment for the Democrats, who won control of the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress in last fall's elections.

Since taking office on Jan. 20, the president has signed legislation extending government-financed health care to millions of lower-income children who lack it, a bill that President George W. Bush twice vetoed. He also has placed his signature on a measure making it easier for workers to sue their employers for alleged job discrimination, effectively overturning a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority.

___

On the Net:

Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:15 pm
@Foxfyre,
You are an indefatigable researcher. Thank You. Perhaps you can answer a question. I have read some of the online material that outlines the stimulus package. That appears to be a fait accompli. However, I have seen nothing that outlines the rationale for expenditures. Parados says that the final cost is unknown. ?????????

Could the final cost be Over a TRILLION ?

I have seen no data giving a rationale for electric car tax credits. How did they arrive at the number? I can picture some fuzzy brained Berkeley graduate working at the problem and then deciding--Oh, heck, let's just round it off to 300 Million.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:19 pm
@okie,
A tax credit for those who buy SUV"s? Tell me it isn't so, Okie. Al Gore will have a stroke.

But, it shows that the Obamaites have no real principles except to retain and exercise power.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 05:52 pm
@Foxfyre,
The bill does NOT have such broad categories. Money is designated for purposes. How much will be used for that purpose is unknown.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:41 pm
@genoves,
genoves wrote:

Could the final cost be Over a TRILLION ?

The Heritage Foundation has speculated or calculated this bill could ultimately cost us over 3 Trillion, genoves. The reason is that some of the stimulus will perpetuate, create, and bloat bureaucracies that will never be rolled back.

Heck, just okie sitting here thinking, it could cost us a hundred trillion, because in my adult lifetime, the only bureaucracy I have ever witnessed reduced ever was when Gingrich did welfare reform. And that is not lasting now.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:47 pm
@genoves,
Yes, the CBO and others who have analyzed it expect the total cost to be well over a trillion and, by some analysis, several trillion before we are done and that is if they don't add anything to it which some Democrats are already pushing for.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:48 pm
@okie,
Is that the same Heritage Foundation that calculated Bush's tax cuts would lead to a surplus?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:50 pm
@parados,
Oh really? Then can you show me the specific items that will be approved within any of the bigger categories or even the smaller ones? Can you show me the required criteria for determining who gets the money and in what manner it will be spent? Who gets to decide those expenditures for sure? And what justification must they show in order to authorize them?

Narrow it down for me please.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:51 pm
@parados,
No, it is the same Heritage Foundation that showed how Bush's tax cuts would likely produce increased revenues to the national treasury which they did.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 06:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Read the bill.

Money authorized for one category can't be used outside that category.

I have a suspicion you are whining based on what others have said about the bill without checking to see if what they said was true.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:04 pm
@parados,
Quote:
ENERGY PROGRAMS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
For an additional amount for ‘‘Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy’’, $18,500,000,000, which shall be used
as follows:
(1) $2,000,000,000 shall be for expenses nec
10 essary for energy efficiency and renewable energy re
11 search, development, demonstration and deployment
12 activities, to accelerate the development of tech
13 nologies, to include advanced batteries, of which not
14 less than $800,000,000 is for biomass and
15 $400,000,000 is for geothermal technologies.
16 (2) $500,000,000 shall be for expenses nec
17 essary to implement the programs authorized under
18 part E of title III of the Energy Policy and Con
19 servation Act (42 U.S.C. 6341 et seq.).
20 (3) $1,000,000,000 shall be for the cost of
21 grants to institutional entities for energy sustain
22 ability and efficiency under section 399A of the En
23 ergy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371h-
1).
....
1 (4) $6,200,000,000 shall be for the Weatheriza
2 tion Assistance Program under part A of title IV of
3 the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42
4 U.S.C. 6861 et seq.).
5 (5) $3,500,000,000 shall be for Energy Effi
6 ciency and Conservation Block Grants, for imple
7 mentation of programs authorized under subtitle E
8 of title V of the Energy Independence and Security
9 Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17151 et seq.).
10 (6) $3,400,000,000 shall be for the State En
11 ergy Program authorized under part D of title III
12 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
13 U.S.C. 6321).


They didn't specify specific projects but it seems they laid out the specifics of what the projects were supposed to do in order to qualify for the funds.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:05 pm
@parados,
Unfortunately we don't have ANY limitations of what is considered to be outside that category do we? It is all left open ended and we just have to hope that it will be spent responsibly and in a useful manner. And of course the government has such an excellent track record of spending large amounts of money responsibily and in a useful manner.

Personally, I think the possibility that we are all royally screwed is very good. But I've probably lived longer than you have too.

(And I have read a LOT of the bill which I'm guessing most of our elected leaders still have not done.)
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
Frankly Fox, you don't want to be informed. You just want to whine.

The first 30 pages of the bill set up the accountability and oversight provisions.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
LOL..

Quote:
Unfortunately we don't have ANY limitations of what is considered to be outside that category do we? It is all left open ended and we just have to hope that it will be spent responsibly and in a useful manner. And of course the government has such an excellent track record of spending large amounts of money responsibily and in a useful manner.


Oh for **** sake Fox. You don't have a clue about the bill but you pretend you do.

Read section 1226 before you make such idiotic comments.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:15 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Read the bill.

Yeah, too bad congressmen didn't have time to read the bill before they were made to vote on it, isn't it Parados. You can thank Nancy and Harry.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:17 pm
@okie,
Are Senators incapable of reading at even a reasonable rate of speed?

The Senate vote was held open for over 5 hours. As stated already, the bill can be read in about 3.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:21 pm
Let me share a little story.

Years ago I headed a large social organization (roughly 4000 members) and, among the various programs/activities we offered was a preschool targeted at mothers who could not afford the private preschools around town. With United Way monies and private donations we were able to charge a much lower rate, but at one point we wanted some special equipment and our usual angels were tapped out for that year.

So, when we ran across some available government cash, on a lark we started writing and submitting grants. One after another grant application was rejected. As we knew we were offering programs and services at least as worthy as those who were getting the grants, we scratched our heads and pondered what we could do to qualify. One of my staffers came up with the brilliant idea of using the term 'pre-delinquent' instead of 'low income'. With the very next application, that one minor change got us the money.

That illustrated to me as nothing else could how really fickle, uncareful, and even incompetent are those who allocate the taxpayers money.

(Incidentally, we would have gotten by just fine without that $2000 grant and could have waited until other funds became available. We only went after it because it was there though we did do very good things with it. We dutifully filed a final report as the grant required but otherwise there was absolutely no oversight or accountability required for what we did with the money.)

Now multiply our little $2,000 grant hundreds of millions of times over, and do you think the government will be any more discriminating or careful in how our money is spent?

I wish I was not so cynical.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:23 pm
@Foxfyre,
So, your little story means you haven't read the bill?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2009 07:25 pm
@parados,
No I have read only some of it. But if you say you could read it in 3 hours I'm sure you have and can very competently explain exactly what is in it and answer all the questions I or any of us have about it. Yes?

So who gets the neighborhood development grants? What is the criteria they will use to decide that? Who gets to decide that? And what accountability will those receiving those grants have to show that we got bang for our bucks?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.05 seconds on 06/14/2025 at 03:50:00