Despite a bipartisan effort...

Took the time. Didn't help.

It's more than 50 million out of 800 billion...it's more like 710 Billion of the 800 Billion is for pork...according to the Wall Street Journal

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

"...businesses decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold on to their cash, and invest in future years. Yet Roosevelt retaliated by introducing a tax--the undistributed profit tax--to press the money out of them. Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938"

Like most Europeans, he [Nimh] is a hard left Socialist.

My great-grandfather was a hard left Socialist. Stalin sent him to the gulag!

Most white people did not vote for President Obama.

But there are more serious critiques of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act " from more serious critics. The most compelling"ffered by Clinton administration budget chief Alice Rivkin and Democratic senator Ben Nelson as well as principled conservatives like New York Times columnist David Brooks and Reagan administration economic adviser Martin Feldstein"is that an $800 billion stimulus package ought to be all about stimulus. They're not the Hooverish partisans whining that the stimulus plan has turned into a "spending plan," as if government spending was a preposterous strategy for jump starting the economy. They're concerned with how the money would be spent. They're OK with a short-term injection of cash, but they don't think this is the time for long-term government investments. They want to focus on fighting the recession, and they don't see Pell grants, renewable energy subsidies, health-care technology and Head Start-much less the beautification of the Mall, contraception for low-income women or additional funding for the arts-as the best way to do that. "Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day," Brooks argues. (See photos of Barack Obama's Inauguration.)

No, I don't admit that.

I just don't think that any criticism of WHERE the money is spent should be considered spin (especially by interent posters on a web-forum).

Quote:

But there are more serious critiques of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act " from more serious critics. The most compelling"ffered by Clinton administration budget chief Alice Rivkin and Democratic senator Ben Nelson as well as principled conservatives like New York Times columnist David Brooks and Reagan administration economic adviser Martin Feldstein"is that an $800 billion stimulus package ought to be all about stimulus. They're not the Hooverish partisans whining that the stimulus plan has turned into a "spending plan," as if government spending was a preposterous strategy for jump starting the economy. They're concerned with how the money would be spent. They're OK with a short-term injection of cash, but they don't think this is the time for long-term government investments. They want to focus on fighting the recession, and they don't see Pell grants, renewable energy subsidies, health-care technology and Head Start-much less the beautification of the Mall, contraception for low-income women or additional funding for the arts-as the best way to do that. "Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day," Brooks argues. (See photos of Barack Obama's Inauguration.)

So you'll admit that Obama is using this stimulus package to promote and expand programs that democrats want to pursue outside the normal congressional process.

Fine, that's all I wanted to point out.

I think it's wrong to do that, and I'd was pissed when Republicans did it during the Bush administration, but if you're cool with sinking down to that level, then cool.

I don't think the Dems are doing anything wrong.

You just don't agree with how the stimulus is being spent.

I think this is mostly b/c you don't understand how the bill is supposed to work, or what 'stimulus' means.

I also don't understand what 'outside the normal' process means. If you know anything about Washington, you'll see that what's going on right now? Perfectly normal.

Quote:

I think this is mostly b/c you don't understand how the bill is supposed to work, or what 'stimulus' means.

You think wrong

The purpose of this stimulus is to create jobs through government investment.

Oh you got me! I AM an Idiot.

I didn't even understand that the purpose of the economic stimulus package was to stimulate the economy.

Doh! (did you really expect me to spell that out? isn't it sort of obvious?)


Thanks for ignoring the entire remainder of my post. I'll limit all further conversation with you to single, 1 sentence thoughts, as to no longer waste my time.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Obama pledged a five-tier rescue plan to create jobs by melding traditional road-building projects with massive investment in new technology and green infrastructure.

maporsche - You may be proven right, you may be proven wrong. I can't help but feel however that you've become cynical to the degree that you may need ot challenge yourself to have an open mind.

I'm sure you have your reasons for feeling cynical. I have similar feelings often, but I think if it's all you've got, then you've lost touch. I hear a lot of criticism, but what are your ideas? You don't think the economy needs a stimulus package. Do you understand why others thin that it does?