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 don't want to feed an ugly dog!
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 ???
"I don't believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None."
"""A couple of pleasant but obscure former governors representing a minor party may sound like an unpromising use of your ballot. Until you consider the alternatives." Gary Johnson
As if we needed the CBO to tell us this:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.