Obama, is he over his head?

[luvmylabs23139]

Only in Republican lala land are PELL grants welfare.

Yes it is. It gives free college education and living expenses to certain people. Why the heck should my husband and I pay for that crap?? We both put ourselves through college working full time and going to school at night, or at times working at night full time and taking daytime classes. I have no issue with student loans. Money that will be paid back.

[zeus3925]

You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

[Lucky Seven]

You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

I hope you dont honestly think that this "spending bill" I mean stimulous bill is going to help the country.

300 million for STD study ???

264 billion (32 percent) is new means-tested welfare spending. This represents about $6,700 in new welfare spending for every poor person in the U.S.

$523 billion in new welfare spending that is hidden by budgetary gimmicks. If the bill is enacted, the total 10-year extra welfare cost is likely to be $787 billion

Once the hidden welfare spending in the bill is counted, the total 10-year fiscal burden (added to the national debt) will not be $816 billion, as claimed, but $1.34 trillion. This amounts to $17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.

Please explain to me how this is going to help ALL AMERICANS out ???

[Franco]

You're all boxing with a ghost. The stimulus package is still in bi-partisan discussions. The final bill put up for vote is likely to be quite a bit different when it emerges from committee. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent writing to your congressman than making personal attacks on these threads when people disagree with you.

No matter how you try an disguise it, the bill that passed the House belongs to the Democrats and all of you should be ashamed of it!

[Mike Noel]

As if we needed the CBO to tell us this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/

Call me crazy but I would rather deal with short term pain that brings long term prosperity versus the alternative. The problem is, that isn't the American way anymore. Comfort now and don't worry about how much it costs!! That mentality helped get us in the position we are in today.

[Henry V]

No matter how you try an disguise it, the bill that passed the House belongs to the Democrats and all of you should be ashamed of it!

Help me understand. Who should be ashamed for the $1.2 deficit that was a surplus 8 years ago and who should be ashamed of the $700 billion bailout to the banks with no accountability for overvalued resources?
The bill in the long run will change much from the house version. I have seen a couple republican governors publicly supporting a big stimulus bill too.

[YardleyLabs]

As if we needed the CBO to tell us this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ver-long-haul/

Call me crazy but I would rather deal with short term pain that brings long term prosperity versus the alternative. The problem is, that isn't the American way anymore. Comfort now and don't worry about how much it costs!! That mentality helped get us in the position we are in today.

I would agree if nothing is done to reduce the deficit again.

The $1.6 trillion in tax cuts implemented in 2001 in combination with massive increases in spending are among the causes of the current problems. While additional short-term deficits make sense to try to stimulate a failing economy, we must return to fiscal discipline.

I assume, based on your concerns about a balanced budget, that you would oppose growing the deficit even further to finance an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Remember, those tax cuts would have carried a price tag of almost $5 trillion if not scheduled since their adoption to expire once Bush left office.

[Cody Covey]

I agree that some spending would be fine but what they are proposing is not some spending it is big spending and a lot of it have nothing to do with stimulating the ecomony. I heard Sen. Inoya (sp?) say today that there is absolutely no earmarks or pork in the bill...how can anyone say that there isn't any with a straight face is beyond me.

[Mike Noel]

I would agree if nothing is done to reduce the deficit again.

The $1.6 trillion in tax cuts implemented in 2001 in combination with massive increases in spending are among the causes of the current problems. While additional short-term deficits make sense to try to stimulate a failing economy, we must return to fiscal discipline.

I assume, based on your concerns about a balanced budget, that you would oppose growing the deficit even further to finance an extension of the Bush tax cuts. Remember, those tax cuts would have carried a price tag of almost $5 trillion if not scheduled since their adoption to expire once Bush left office.

I have told many folks that I would happily go back to Clinton level tax rates if it meant a balanced budget. I won't pay more to finance the Dems pent up demand for their pet projects. Note: I know there is Republican pork in there as well, it is just as distasteful as the Dem pork.

The long term negative effect on GDP brought about by this stimulus would in turn have the same effect on our tax base thus requiring much larger tax rates which would in turn crimp growth.....another nasty spiral down. Like the Fram filter man says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later".

The level of employment and economic activity we enjoyed over the 6 years before the crap hit the fan was artificially supported by low interest rates and an over leveraged consumer and business community. Most of the jobs that have been lost over the last year probably should not have existed in the first place. I doubt if many of them come back soon, if ever, no matter how much the government spends.

[YardleyLabs]

I have told many folks that I would happily go back to Clinton level tax rates if it meant a balanced budget. I won't pay more to finance the Dems pent up demand for their pet projects. Note: I know there is Republican pork in there as well, it is just as distasteful as the Dem pork.

The long term negative effect on GDP brought about by this stimulus would in turn have the same effect on our tax base thus requiring much larger tax rates which would in turn crimp growth.....another nasty spiral down. Like the Fram filter man says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later".

The level of employment and economic activity we enjoyed over the 6 years before the crap hit the fan was artificially supported by low interest rates and an over leveraged consumer and business community. Most of the jobs that have been lost over the last year probably should not have existed in the first place. I doubt if many of them come back soon, if ever, no matter how much the government spends.

I understand and respect your position. A stimulus program, whether based on one time tax cuts or one time spending, is a risky proposition, although it is much better than a program based on recurring spending or tax cuts. I come down on the side of believing we need to try something, but it's close and there's a good chance that it will not work or not work well enough to justify the cost.