Stimulus passes in party line vote

Because watchdogs are good.

If you didn't buy into scare tactics after 9/11, you shouldn't buy into them now, either.

... Republicans Abducate An Responsibility To Fix Mess They Created!

Breaking, but not surprising.

The House Republicans are irrelevant. The President doesn't need them to get his programs passed.

We will have to wait how the bill fares in the Senate. If party lines hold then the Republican Senators will have sent a clear message to the American people that they don't want to fix the mess they created and they don't care if they get re-elected in 2010.

I'm sure the American people will be happy to oblige them.

You can't admit how much the Democrats are to blame for all this. I'll even go so far as to say the Repubs saw this coming and tried to prevent it and failed, but no way no how can you admit that the over-regulation and affirmative action brought in by Clinton and reinforced by hardline Libs in Congress (including BO) caused this problem.

I applaud the Republicans for holding the line. Let the Dems crash and burn from this idiotic pork-filled bill.

Change you can believe in!!! AMEN!!! Let's see...tax cheat in for treasury sec; lobbyists in the "no lobbyists" administration; and the single largest gov't spending, um.. stimulus... EVER. Get back to me on how much money that "stimulus" package puts in your pocket. Real Change. Yep.

The dems won! Sorry guys, it's there turn at the steering wheeel to try programs they think might work. Anything is better than Dubya and his band of merry pranksters.
Get over it neocons-you are just along for the ride at this point.

Since we have not had much in the way of either regulation or affirmative action for the last eight years, you are right about that one.

Republicans keep ignoring the last eight years at there peril. Most people have lived through it and it hasn't been pretty. They can't keep saying "Who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?" because we won't believe them any more until they quit creating their own reality and come back to live in the real world with the rest of us.

Heh, what with the selective reporting of the media monolith to our citizenry who are spoonfed their information, I'm not even going to touch on your comment there.

The irony is painful.

Darrell Issa, self-identified GOP leader, was on Hardball criticizing the bill. One portion of it he didn't approve of is increased funding for IDEA, which is the (supposedly) federally funded and definitely federally mandated special education program. When this program was originally created by legislation in 1974, the feds promised to fund 40% of it. Yet they have never funded half that amount.

So I guess Darrell is just another GOPer who doesn't believe in programs that help children.

But something tells me he voted to spend $720 million a day on the Iraq invasion.

Clueless.

Check out this graph and commentary

http://networdblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/oh-crap.html

It's based on recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis

We tried to warn you

...for some reason your comment reminds me of an old BST song, "Ride Captain, Ride."

It's definitely gonna be a mystery ship! (smile)

The Republicans voted for a bill they believe will work, heavy on tax cuts for businesses, so they will hire people to do real jobs, instead of government jobs. ;)

The Democrats voted No, because they believe we can spend ourselves rich.

The Republicans then voted No on the Obama-Pelosi bill, to spend ourselves rich. They don't think that will work, won't shorten the recession, and will be bad for America.

The Democrats, who won the election, then passed the Obama-Pelosi bill to air drop money in large bales from coast to coast, at random locations, after first printing the money, or borrowing it from China, or both.

I'm glad both sides cast principled votes for what the believe in. The GOP believes people are smart and should be able to spend their own money. Pelosi and Obama think the government is the answer.

It's an important disagreement over what will help the nation, and what will not.

Our good friend Teki demonstrates the kind of amnesia it takes to blame everything on Democrats.

You can't admit how much the Democrats are to blame for all this. I'll even go so far as to say the Repubs saw this coming and tried to prevent it and failed, but no way no how can you admit that the over-regulation and affirmative action brought in by Clinton and reinforced by hardline Libs in Congress (including BO) caused this problem.

Let's see from 2001 to 2006 the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. From 2006 to 2008, Democrats controlled Congress, but only by one vote in the Senate.

Yet, our good friend, Teki, seems to have forgotten these FACTS.

Hmmmmmmmmm, Teki, I can't seem to remember when the Decider (you remember him don't you?) warned us about the coming economic collapse, proposed solutions, and the Democrats didn't do anything. And, of course, you must remember, but I don't, when the Republican leadership in Congress warned us about the collapse, proposed solutions, and the Democrats did nothing.

I don't remember any of those things happening, but you will tell us, won't you?

In the meantime, I am correct that between 2001 and 2006 Republicans controlled the White House and Congress, right?

stealing billions to pay off their equally corrupt constituencies. Down with the left wing thieves.

They took the condom money out of the bill.

Herbie, you are a little obscure on how you feel about Democrats.

What is you opinion about them?

Don't hold anything back.

Congressional Republicans are the least popular politicians in Washington DC. So they decide the way to fix that is to oppose a popular President and a stimulus package that also enjoys widespread support.

I can't possibly see how this won't result in landslide victories in 2010 and 2012.

this was just another pack of Democrats stealing money from the public to pay off their parasitical supporters like ACORN. A Democrat is just a thief.

Filled with so much pork, I can hear Ned Beatty squealing even now.

That should tell you guys something.

11 Dems also voted no.

That should scream at you, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and peer pressure.

It really wasn't a question of whether or not the bill would pass... that was a foregone conclusion.

The fact that Obama and the Dems wanted the Repub votes should tell you how unsure they were of how bad this bill is. It means they don't have any faith in it and want some scapegoats when it goes south.

These people could not hold their nose and vote for it.

I salute them. I will be sending my thanks to them. Now we have to see what happens in the Senate.

I know nothing of the program, might be a great one, but how does this help stimulate the economy? Simple, it doesn't. Assuming the purpose is to get people back to work, then this does nothing. Another piece of legislation that doesn't belong in this bill.

Another example of Congress inability to do anything except fill the coffers of the people that get them elected. Streetwalkers have more morals.

I don't really have to explain to you how educating our kids helps our economy, do I?

...we'd all admit that we don't really comprehend the dimensions of the current economic crisis. Ergo, we can't be sure if the economic stimulus package is going to help or hurt our country.
Unfortunately, no one does...
It bothers me, considering the statement above is absolutely true, that we see politicians casting votes along party lines. I'm glad 11 Memebers of Congress from the Democratic Party voted their conscience and not their party allegiance.
I'm terribly disappointed not a single Republican showed the courage to do so.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I get it that there are valid differences in opinion regarding this package.
But, I don't think 100% of the Republicans think this plan is wrong based on the limited evidence.

Further, I hope everyone sends a message to their representative that the divisiveness of the past decade is not going to be tolerated. We must adopt new and hopefully stronger alliances among the factions of Congress and the nation in order to create some type of creative opportunity from the ashes of our current crisis. We can't accomplish that in a partisan first environment.

is not a stimulus package. It's simply a donation of a huge sum of money from one thieving Democrat rat to his litter of parasitic pals. This is why Rush was correct in saying he hoped Osama Obama would fail.

This entire crisis was caused because we used our banking system as a welfare agency and the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie was B Hussein Obama.

It's going to be a long 4 years with this ghetto rat doling out your money to his cronies (and probably 8 given that we've now institutionalized election fraud.

I salute you for not parsing your words--
and I agree.

...above and tell us that these two fecal focal points for brains that are proud soldiers in Rush's legion aren't daffy as a duck.

I understand about education helping us. This bill, as orignally discussed by the prez, was to be about infrastructure: bridges, roads, the power grid, etc. This is to put money into the system now, in the belief it will have a positive effect in a short time period, as soon as 2010.

Hiring more teachers, more administrators, doesn't seem to fit that description. I understand that education is much desired, I'm saying it doesn't fit the purpose.

Infrastructure is PART OF the bill. Surely you didn't expect all of it to be spent on infrastructure?

We will have to wait and see what kinds of results this bill has on the country's economy. I think investing in education is never a bad idea. Schools will get money to upgrade facilities and to improve programs for kids. I would certainly rather see that than money thrown at banks and spent on planes and bonuses for executives.

It will also be interesting to see if the Senate passes this same bill or makes changes to it.

A person can't be other than touched by Midtown's solicitude for the political wellbeing of the GOP. He can look past his partisanship and give the GOP earnest, open advice on how to win elections. On the 11 Democrats with good sense (or a desire to hold onto their jobs, or both), I don't think they'd be getting plaudits if their votes had caused the plan to fail.

"...we'd all admit that we don't really comprehend the dimensions of the current economic crisis. Ergo, we can't be sure if the economic stimulus package is going to help or hurt our country."

I'll condede the first sentence to you PM, because you are correct. I doubt most of us can wrap our brains around the number of zeros involved here.

And since our elected officials are human, I doubt they can either.

As for the second sentence, I can look to history and see how previous stimulus attempts have helped. History tells us they don't. Ergo, I stick by this being a bad bill and stupid Democrats.

http://networdblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/oh-crap.html

Just look at the graph. See that bump in 2000? That's the tech bubble that burst and the government's attempt to adjust. Remember how people were freaking out back then for that speedbump? Now look at the frikkin straight line increase we have now. Hey let's print more money!

It certainly is touching that our good right wing friends have now become fiscal conservatives.

Let's not forget from 2000 to 2006 Republicans controlled Congress and the White House and the deficit soared. (And, of course, they were given a budget surplus.)

How did that happen?

Now, ever sober economist concludes the only place to restart the economy is through government spending.

And, our good conservative friends NOW discover they are fiscal conservatives.

Your ideas clearly lost in November my good friends. And, if your leaders continue to listen to Rush and do everything possible to make sure Obama fails, then expect even more losses in 2010.

Liberals are afraid of governing. My god, suck it up libs. It's your House, your Senate and your White House. And here you are complaining about a bunch of Republican votes that you didn't even need.

If you can't stand the heat, then clear the hell out of Washington, D.C. Because the real heat is coming in the U.S. Senate.

No need to worry, Herbert Spencer. That ACORN pork will be gone in the Senate version. In fact I predict that John McCain will be in total revolt over that money to ACORN and count on many Republicans joining him.

Here is an excerpt from an article in the San Francisco Chronicle criticizing the Liberal Stimulus bill:

The Democratic plan took a hit when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 7 percent of infrastructure money would make its way into the economy by the end of the year, and only 38 percent would be spent by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. Obama's new White House budget director, Peter Orszag, disputed the findings, saying 75 percent of the money would be spent by fiscal 2010.

I thought liberals liked transparency?

What frustrates us involves the fact that there is little direct correlation proving that fiscal policy &/or monetary policy directly impacts the economy.
Economics is a very, very imprecise science. Your graph can be evidence to prove any point since there are so many "other" factors that influence results that have little or no relationship to the government.
Because of this, and a basic distrust of our politicians, I am generally a fiscal conservative.
However, these are extraordinary times. That means the conditions that exist today are not responding to ordinary attempts to get things going.
So it seems logical that if the actions of the Fed to stimulate things isn't being effective, the smart step is to try something else.
Unfortunately, the timing of the stimulus package couldn't be politically worse.
The Bush years (bipartisan fault) will be known for its runaway deficits and utter waste.
So all of us have a very bitter taste about more spending. Especially, and this is important, especially on a plan that has no guarantees.
Worse, the idiots who wrote this 645 page legislation included some of the most inflammatory funding possible into its pages.
That was just too much for many people to accept. I understand that.
However, that doesn't mean we should summarily dismiss the entire concept. It (or a variation of it) should become a part of our arsenal to fix things.
It needs to be done quickly, as each day brings more lay-offs and Americans who are suffering.
It makes sense to me to try this idea.
It makes no sense to me to stick our heads in the sand and hope things get spontaneously better.

The House Repubs held together, maybe we can put a stake through the heart of this spending Dracula in the Senate. I mean after all, Clara said she wouold not vote for it if had any pork. 25 million for an ATV trail, HELLO!

It seems obvious there are lots of programs in the Stimulus Package that are inflammatory to large segments of the citizenry.
I'd like more transparency naming which legislator included what item into this 645 page Stimulus package.
Who put contraceptives into this package?
Who put ACORN into this package?

The list goes on... We were promised that we'd know this information and I expect to see it.

I'm afraid we are going to derail meaningful efforts to fix the economy because idiots in Washington are playing politics as usual.

The Stimulus package contains $275 Billion dollars in tax cuts.
$145 Billion tax cut to individuals and married couple over the next two years.
$23 Billion expansion of the per child tax credit and earned tax credit for the working poor.
$6.9 Billion for Homeowner tax credits.
$20 Billion for accelerated depreciation for business equipment.

Gee.

I wonder how many Republicans who voted blindly along party lines think tax cuts are wrong?

...under the rules of transparency to hear Sam Graves explain why he opposes giving tax cuts to the people.
How about it Sam?
Can you explain why it's been your record to support economic advantages to your wealthy friends but turn your back on helping the ordinary people?

And yet the bill still passed the House. And I still predict at least two Republican Senators will crumple like wet Kleenex and vote for this bill.

Only in your tiny mind is a loss a victory, Rogue, old buddy.

But I am surprised Republicans voted against tax cuts. I thought they were FOR tax cuts.

You are right Snowe and Dukakis will fold like a cheap suit, but how many Dems may see the light and say whoa on this blank check?

The only way out of this mess is to prop up with tax payer dollars a completely collapsed and failed economic system???!!!!! There is no shoring this mess up. A total rebuild with short term nationalization is the only real solution. No big bank is going to ever cooperate, even while taking tax dollars. So take over the insolvent big banks like BOA and CITI and run them. The midsize banks like Commerce, UMB, Cap Fed, Intrust, leave them alone. They are doing just fine without government intervention.

Read it and weep:

What Red Ink? Wall Street Paid Hefty Bonuses

By BEN WHITE

Published: January 28, 2009

By almost any measure, 2008 was a complete disaster for Wall Street — except, that is, when the bonuses arrived.

Despite crippling losses, multibillion-dollar bailouts and the passing of some of the most prominent names in the business, employees at financial companies in New York, the now-diminished world capital of capital, collected an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year.

That was the sixth-largest haul on record, according to a report released Wednesday by the New York State comptroller.

While the payouts paled next to the riches of recent years, Wall Street workers still took home about as much as they did in 2004, when the Dow Jones industrial average was flying above 10,000, on its way to a record high.

Some bankers took home millions last year even as their employers lost billions.

The comptroller’s estimate, a closely watched guidepost of the annual December-January bonus season, is based largely on personal income tax collections. It excludes stock option awards that could push the figures even higher.

The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said it was unclear if banks had used taxpayer money for the bonuses, a possibility that strikes corporate governance experts, and indeed many ordinary Americans, as outrageous. He urged the Obama administration to examine the issue closely.

“The issue of transparency is a significant one, and there needs to be an accounting about whether there was any taxpayer money used to pay bonuses or to pay for corporate jets or dividends or anything else,” Mr. DiNapoli said in an interview.

Granted, New York’s bankers and brokers are far poorer than they were in 2006, when record deals, and the record profits they generated, ushered in an era of Wall Street hyperwealth. All told, bonuses fell 44 percent last year, from $32.9 billion in 2007, the largest decline in dollar terms on record.

But the size of that downturn partly reflected the lofty heights to which bonuses had soared during the bull market. At many banks, those payouts were based on profits that turned out to be ephemeral. Throughout the financial industry, years of earnings have vanished in the flames of the credit crisis.

According to Mr. DiNapoli, the brokerage units of New York financial companies lost more than $35 billion in 2008, triple their losses in 2007. The pain is unlikely to end there, and Wall Street is betting that the Obama administration will move swiftly to buy some of banks’ troubled assets to encourage reluctant banks to make loans.

Many corporate governance experts, investors and lawmakers question why financial companies that have accepted taxpayer money paid any bonuses at all. Financial industry executives argue that they need to pay their best workers well in order to keep them, but with many banks cutting jobs, job options are dwindling, even for stars.

Lucian A. Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School and expert on executive compensation, called the 2008 bonus figure “disconcerting.” Bonuses, he said, are meant to reward good performance and retain employees. But Wall Street disbursed billions despite staggering losses and a shrinking job market.

“This was neither the sixth-best year in terms of aggregate profits, nor was it the sixth-most-difficult year in terms of retaining employees,” Professor Bebchuk said.

Echoing Mr. DiNapoli, Professor Bebchuk said he was concerned that banks might be using taxpayer money to subsidize bonuses or dividends to stockholders. “What the government has been trying to do is shore up capital, and any diversion of capital out of banks, whether in the form of dividends or large payments to employees, really undermines what we are trying to do,” he said.

Jesse M. Brill, a lawyer and expert on executive compensation, said government bailout programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, should be made more transparent.

“We are all flying in the dark,” Mr. Brill said. “Companies can simply say they are trying to do their best to comply with compensation limits without providing any of the details that the public is entitled to.”

Bonuses paid by one troubled Wall Street firm, Merrill Lynch, have come under particular scrutiny during the last week.

Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, has issued subpoenas to John A. Thain, Merrill’s former chief executive, and to an executive at Bank of America, which recently acquired Merrill, asking for information about Merrill’s decision to pay $4 billion to $5 billion in bonuses despite new, gaping losses that forced Bank of America to seek a second financial lifeline from Washington.

A Treasury Department official said that in the coming weeks, the department would take action to further ensure taxpayer money is not used to pay bonuses.

Even though Wall Street spent billions on bonuses, New York firms squeezed rank-and-file executives harder than many companies in other fields. Outside the financial industry, many corporate executives received fatter bonuses in 2008, even as the economy lost 2.6 million jobs. According to data from Equilar, a compensation research firm, the average performance-based bonuses for top executives, other than the chief executive, at 132 companies with revenues of more than $1 billion increased by 14 percent, to $265,594, in the 2008 fiscal year.

For New York State and New York City, however, the leaner times on Wall Street will hurt, Mr. DiNapoli said.

Mr. DiNapoli said the average Wall Street bonus declined 36.7 percent, to $112,000. That is smaller than the overall 44 percent decline because the money was spread among a smaller pool following thousands of job losses.

The comptroller said the reduction in bonuses would cost New York State nearly $1 billion in income tax revenue and cost New York City $275 million.

On Wall Street, where money is the ultimate measure, some employees apparently feel slighted by their diminished bonuses. A poll of 900 financial industry employees released on Wednesday by eFinancialCareers.com, a job search Web site, found that while nearly eight out of 10 got bonuses, 46 percent thought they deserved more.

Paul J. Sullivan contributed reporting.

...is the banks may need another $2 Trillion in bailout money.
The Obama team is looking at several options, including buying the common stocks of these banks.
I like the creativity and hope that exploring "out of the box" ideas doesn't put the chances for exploring wide-ranging solutions on ice.
We don't have a roadmap to guide us out of this mess, folks. We've got to work together to find viable options.

if the government hadn't mandated, and it did, bad loans. No you want to turn the banks over to the same pigs who put us into this fix? Talk about nationalizing the economy. Less than a week in office and already this Marxist ghetto rat is socializing America.

Frankly, after the bang up job the Masters of the Universe have done, I'll take my chances with Federal banking regulators under a legislative mandate to clean up the mess.

At least they won't be receiving $18.5 Billion in bonuses for their "great" work.

The system is not damaged, it is completely collapsed. the last idiots we need to rely on are the captains of the Street. They are responsible to no one but themselves, apparently not even their shareholders.

Sorry, Herbie, the government did not mandate the vast number of bad loans that created this mess.

We all know that facts have a liberal bias, so you many not like this article which actually provides some numbers about where the bad loans are.

And, read this about poor people causing the collapse.

One more case showing the liberal bias in facts.

Thanks for your useful info, I think it’s a good topic. So would you like the info about the
jordan shoes
Air jordan shoes
ugg boots uk
ugg boots london
Tiffany Jewelry
ugg bailey button boots
cheap jordan shoes
cardy ugg boots
Michael jordan shoes
ugg london
ugg nightfall boots
ugg boots sale
classic ugg boots
sundance ugg boots
air jordan fusion 6
air jordan 6 rings
jordan shoes for sale