Sunday, February 8, 2009

Congress and the Stimulus Package

The NY Times article below is a good analysis of the differences between the House and Senate bills. The House bill is directing money to the states and local governments to help stimulate the state and local economies. The Senate version strikes much of this funding. Many members of Congress, in both parties, believe that states have been for a decade building big government programs and refusing to raise taxes to pay for these new programs. Also many believe that states have to do a better job of cutting budgets now and cannot be turning to the federal government for aid. California's Governor is not able or willing to raise taxes in his state and he wants the most funding for his state. A similar story from many Governors. When we look at the devastation that the banking/crdit crisis and the economic failures all across America there does not seem to be much that Governor's and state legislature's can do about a solution--it has to come from the federal Government, in the opinion of many. Loss of state aid in the stimulus bill will cause hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in the states.

NY Times
February 8, 2009
Divisions Over the Competing Stimulus Bills
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The Senate agreement on a roughly $827 billion economic stimulus bill sets up tough negotiations with the House, primarily over tens of billions of dollars in aid to states and local governments, tax provisions, and education, health and renewable energy programs.

Congress is racing to try to finalize the legislation this week.

The price tag for the Senate plan is now only slightly more than the $820 billion cost of the measure adopted by the House. Both plans are intended to blunt the recession with a combination of tax cuts and government spending on public works and other programs to create more than three million jobs.

But the competing bills now reflect substantially different approaches. The House puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees. The Senate cut $40 billion of that aid from its bill, which is expected to be approved Tuesday.

The Senate plan, reached in an agreement late Friday between Democrats and three moderate Republicans, focuses somewhat more heavily on tax cuts, provides far less generous health care subsidies for the unemployed and lowers a proposed increase in food stamps.

To help allay Republican concerns about the cost, the Senate proposal even scales back President Obama’s signature middle-class tax cut. The Senate plan also creates new tax incentives to encourage Americans to buy homes and cars within the next year.

Republican opponents continued to rail against the stimulus plan on the Senate floor on Saturday, though it appeared they would not have the votes to stop it.

The negotiations in Congress will test whether Democrats, who say they won a mandate in November to pursue their goals, are willing to give up some favored long-term policy initiatives to win over more Republican votes.

The talks will also test whether any but the most moderate Republicans will be willing to support the Obama administration, or whether they will simply recoil in an opposition stance.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was in Williamsburg, Va., on a retreat with her fellow House Democrats on Friday, called the emerging Senate cuts to the stimulus program “very damaging” and said she was “very much opposed to them.” But after the Senate reached a deal, Ms. Pelosi expressed resolve to complete the legislation in the days ahead.

Mr. Obama, who has made the economic recovery effort the centerpiece of his agenda, is expected to take a stronger hand in the negotiations and will embark on an aggressive public lobbying campaign.

He will hold a meeting in Indiana on Monday, followed by a formal White House news conference, the first of his term, in prime time on Monday night. He will pitch the plan again on Tuesday in Florida and on Wednesday in Virginia.

In his weekly radio and Internet address on Saturday, the president praised the Senate deal and urged quick passage of a final bill.

“The time for action is now,” Mr. Obama said. “If we don’t move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe.”

Also on Monday, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is expected to announce the broad outlines of a rescue plan for the financial industry. The administration hopes that the announcement will quiet some critics in Congress who say not enough is being done for the housing sector.

After Senate Democrats reached their deal with moderate Republicans on Friday, Republicans who are more conservative refused to put the legislative process on a fast track.

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, insisted that the deal required careful deliberation and said he would spend the weekend reviewing it, even though it was all but certain that he would not support the measure.

As a result, the Senate met for a rare Saturday session, and Republicans delivered some of their harshest criticism of Mr. Obama since he took office, suggesting that he was pressing Congress to act irresponsibly by warning of imminent catastrophe.

“In discussing with the American people his approach to the stimulus of our economy, he has first really used some dangerous words,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican. Mr. Kyl added, “It seems to me that the president is rather casually throwing out some careless language.”

The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said Congress would move quickly to get the bill into conference, in hopes of sending the bill to the White House by the week’s end.

As it stands, three Republicans are expected to join the 58 Democrats in favor of the bill, and the negotiations may tilt slightly in the Senate’s favor as officials try to keep that coalition in place.

Both the House and the Senate must vote again to approve the final legislation, leaving a chance of unexpected pitfalls.

The main fight is likely to be over the Senate’s proposal to cut $40 billion from proposed aid to states. Such aid does not necessarily lift the economy, but it prevents states from carrying out cuts that could make the recession worse, and the money can be deployed quickly, a challenge in any stimulus.

The $40 billion was the largest cut in a paring back of the Senate proposal that helped seal a deal between Democrats and the moderate Republicans, thanks to the efforts of a bipartisan group led by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

Another big difference is the Senate’s inclusion of nearly $70 billion to protect thousands of middle-class Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax in 2009, sparing them from a system originally intended to prevent the wealthy from claiming too many tax deductions.

House Democratic leaders have indicated a willingness to retain that provision even though it could require them to give up tens of billions of dollars in favored spending programs and force them to make wrenching choices.

Adjusting the alternative minimum tax is also unlikely to give much extra lift to the economy, because Congress has adopted similar fixes for years and would probably have done so again regardless of the stimulus.

Other trims the Senate settled on eliminated $19.5 billion in construction aid for schools and colleges and sliced proposed new aid for the Head Start early childhood program by $1 billion.

In some cases, the cuts to the Senate bill brought it closer to the House proposal. For instance, the senators reduced financing to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas to $7 billion from $9 billion. The House has proposed $6 billion.

Some of the Senate’s changes clearly reflected the personal priorities of lawmakers, especially the moderate Republicans who were instrumental in reaching an accord.

The Senate deal, for example, reduced proposed aid to NASA and the National Science Foundation by $200 million each.

But it added $6.5 billion for medical research at the National Institutes of Health, favored by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, one of the three Republicans supporting the plan

Even with Democrats controlling both chambers, the negotiations are likely to be difficult. House Democrats have shown little inclination to cater to Republican wishes, especially given the unwillingness of Republicans to vote for the bill.

So far, Mr. Obama and his aides have strongly resisted any change to his proposal for a middle-class tax cut, which was one of his main campaign promises.

It would provide a tax credit of up to $500 for individuals and up to $1,000 for couples, with the credit phasing out for individuals earning more than $75,000 a year and couples more than $150,000.

The Senate bill would lower that income cap to $70,000 for individuals and $140,000 for couples, saving the government $2 billion but potentially reducing the effectiveness of a tax break that is intended to lift consumer spending.

It is unclear how Congress will deal with two provisions aimed directly at general consumers, including an $11 billion tax break in the Senate bill to spur car sales by allowing buyers to deduct any sales tax and one year of loan interest.

The chambers must reconcile competing homebuyer tax credits.

To stabilize real estate prices, the House would give first-time homebuyers a tax credit of 10 percent of a home’s cost, up to $7,500, with income caps reducing the credit for individuals earning at least $75,000 and couples earning $150,000.

The Senate plan includes a more generous credit of 10 percent, up to $15,000, that would be available to all homebuyers, with no income limits.

A formal conference to resolve the differences between the two bills is expected to begin by midweek.

In the Senate debate, critics of the plan said their main objective was to support proposals that would quickly create jobs or spur consumer spending.

But there were Republicans who vehemently opposed some spending programs in the bill, saying the federal government was overstepping its bounds and should not be getting involved in taking up local responsibilities like school construction.

Many of the education programs in the bill are top priorities of the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin.

In debate on the Senate floor, many Republicans, including the party’s defeated presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, offered amendments to reduce spending and broaden the tax cuts in the plan. The Democrats easily swatted those down.

Critics of the stimulus plan say Democrats have packed it not with the most effective short-term proposals to lift the economy, but with favored, liberal spending programs that will drastically increase the national debt and cause long-term fiscal harm.

“A bill that was meant to be timely, targeted and temporary has instead become a Trojan horse for pet projects and expanded government,” the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, said in a floor speech on Friday.

Although Mr. Obama made substantial efforts to reach across party lines, not one of the House Republicans voted for the stimulus measure. They complained that House Democrats shut them out of the process.

In the Senate, too, talks proved excruciatingly difficult. In the end, the only Republicans whose support the Democrats won were Mr. Specter, Ms. Collins and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

55 comments:

  1. Congress has had a lot on their plate since President Obama took office. With the President saying that there will be imminent catastrophe if this bill is not passed, is an empty threat to Congress to get this bill passed. This bill has alot of the workings of the new deal from the post great depression era. In a way I believe that the democrats are trying to overspend in a way to make sure that things will not become worse than they already are. But spending an inordinate amount of additional money on government programs with pork will not make things better, and I think that this bill has been passed to quickly, and was not looked at deep enough for the affects it will have on our generation as we move forward.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually watched McCain's plan to cut the price of this bill in half, and shortly after his presentation he objected that the senate was ignoring his bill and moving on to other things, which he siad was against how things are done. Since the president pro tempore agreed with him, and made it so they would look at his bill first, I would have to observe that both sides are guilty of not cooperating with the other, but I don't think that's very bad, since both sides have good points; for example, McCain pointed out that much of the bill's provisions might be good things (like STD prevention), but this bill should be for economic aid. I myself am a bit unsure of whether or not there should be measures not related to the economy in the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What can I say about this stimulus bill? Nothing anyone wants to hea r. If I could say anything, I would say please don’t pass this stimulus bill. My generation has enough debt already, we don’t need to pile on a trillion more dollars.
    If there is so many problems with so many business, and such corruption and wrong doing in the financial markets, than mabey we should just let them all fail.The government doesn’t send a positive message when they are basiclly saying if you make poor decisions and fail, we will help, no matter what. I believe that we should start over again and completely makeover the old ways, our the problems we have will never be fixed.
    There is no way to completely predict what is going to happen with this Bill. In my opinion, the stimulus is a temporary bailout of everything, just like the New Deal; yes it is going to temporarally fix some of our problems , but what about the long term? You don’t here many politicans asking whats going to happen in 50 years, that’s because most of them arent going to be around that long and it will no longer be their problem, it will be mine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Passing this bill would be bad. The list of things that belong in the stimulus bill are as follows 1. Things that will actually stimulate the economy. 2. Nothing else. It is irresponsible of President Obama to spin doomsday scenarios in an effort to pass an 820 plus billion dollar stimulus package loaded with pork. I really can't believe that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and the rest of the dems are so irresponsible that they are willing to throw caution aside for the sake of ramming this bill home before the American people realize that they've been fleeced. I also hope that Senators' Spectre, Snow, and Collins face well funded primary challenges when their seats come up, for deserting their country for the sake of getting their name in the paper on something as important as this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eventually people will realize that cutting taxes means less money coming into the government. I can understand Obama's desire to actually come through on campaign promises, but spending more money that we don't have will not result in a an improved economy. It worked out for Roosevelt and his various Deals, mainly because the US had never heard of deficit spending before, but these are different times. We can actually see the problems coming and we still have a chance to stop them. Put money towards Science, Education, and up-and-coming businesses, let the failures fail, and stop giving wealthy people more money. That doesn't solve a thing

    ReplyDelete
  6. Moderation is a lovely word; if both sides could lay aside their partisanship for just a bit and work together I am sure much more could be accomplished. The stimulus packet may work but it may backfire, there is good argument either way, no one can see into the future. Even if it does work someone has to pay off all the debt. I believe we are now paying 13 cents on every tax dollar to merely pay the INTEREST on the national debt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree in a way with the stimulus bill on them wanting to boost the economy but on the other hand the money has to be paid back. They have not said how this money will be paid back yet, but it will most likely involve the citizens paying this money back. Its a temporary fix to a permanent problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that the stimulus bill is a decision that was made too quickly. Obama wants to prove that he is wanting to do what he promised, but I don't think that he has to prove that right away and so soon. He shouldn't have used it as a threat and said that we are doomed if the bill isn't passed. Something does need to be done about the economy because face it- our economy is going down the toilet- but, it should be small things over a period of time, not big huge decisions that only fix the problem for a small amount of time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that a stimulus package in general is something this country can use right now. As for the specifics of the bill, why not target things that have the greatest chance of boosting the economy or that are of greatest necessity? Things that would create Why not advertise responsible spending and investing as opposed to the 'spend money now, pay later regardless if you can or can't afford it' mentality that got us into this mess? I agree that this bill is being rushed, but I also think that some sort of small term government aid is needed.
    Not all of the responsibility should be placed on the government, though. It is largely due to irrisponsible spending and saving habits of Americans that we as individuals are struggling, and those habits will need to be changed in order for any sort of economic recovery to remain effective in the long term.
    The stimulus package has the potential to be effective in lessening the burden on state governments and stimulating businesses, but our economy will need much more than a stimuulus package to bounce back. We will need a lot of patience and time for changes to take place, and we will need a new mentality to prevent us from digging ourselves deeper into debt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have to admit the entire process with all the stimulus bills that we have seen in the past few months confuses me. I am not going to claim that I have a thorough understanding of the stimulus bills or their affect on our economy. What I am going to say though is that it is evident that moving too quickly on this type of legislation does not seem to be a good thing. The first bailout package is a perfect example. Congress rushed to pass it because we were told our economy would crumble without it and look we are still in this mess. Please do not get me wrong, I have never expected miracles to take place over night and I know that the "fix" will take a long time. But the government handed over enormous amounts of money to these "failing" businesses and they buy new jets, remodel offices, and provide holiday bonuses. I agree that our government needs to take action and I feel that the states should receive some help, after all we bailed out corporate America why not provide aid to states, but it all needs to be done more effectively and carefully. I'm tired of government (both federal and state) being wasteful. Spending the money that we already have and will in the future is going to be a huge burden on the future generations of American citizens. Let's make sure we make it worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. in the long run i honestly just see this as ruining us we will have to pay this back another thing the American people can't afford it will save us for now but condem us in the long run

    ReplyDelete
  12. What happened to our first stimulus package that Congress was so quick to pass? There are no positive traces from the first package and I think President Obama needs to take that into consideration before he continues to threaten Congress about our failing economy. Yes, a package is essential, but don't you think the consequences from the package are just as important? If this package is signed into law no one will wake up the next morning and be any better off. I was never in a position where I was stable, so tell me what this stimulus package is going to do for students my age, college students? The Senate is ripping apart the areas of the package that will affect college students by reducing aid for education. And not to add fuel to the fire, but the idea of "bolstering" our economy by dumping millions into infrastructure blows my mind. In three years when all the money is gone, what do we do with those millions of people who will be unemployed again? Who's going to pay to maintain these new structures? I just think that Congress needs to slow down, and remove pork that has so much interest group priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While I understand that the Senate is trying to put money where it is most needed, I do not agree with their stance of drastically reducing the amount to help State and local governments. In my opinion, this is the place where a good chunk of the money should be directed to. If the states don't get federal help hundreds of thousands of jobs are going to be terminated and that will only pull us further down the road of economical turmoil. Tax cuts are nice but wont help out your average working class citizen if they no longer have a job due to the fact their employer can no longer afford to pay their wages.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I personally don't feel that just throwing billions upon billions of dollars at this problem is going to solve anything. The inflation rate is going to skyrocket if this plan happens, and our money is going to be more worthless than it is now. I think we as Americans need to start looking at long term solutions to these massive economic problems rather than just throwing money at them and hoping they go away.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The stimulus bill targets things that have the greatest chance of boosting the economy.With this bill it is basically "spend money now!" When you are eventually going to need this money back and most likely it will be put back on us. I think that the bill is being rushed in my opinion and Obama thinks he needs to do so right away. I agree that americans are spending too much money and not doing anything to help themselves. I can relate to this.
    The stimulus package has the potential to be effective in many ways. We should all do something to change what our economy is now but the stimulus bill might or might not be the right way as of right now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If the goal is to stimulate the economy, why don't they give 1 million dollars to each person? They don't think people would spend that and pay off their debts?
    Doesn't spending = stimulus?

    ReplyDelete
  17. This whole stimulus plan, to be honest, is extremely confusing to me. I go back and forth as to whether I agree this will help the economy or not. I do agree that President Obama's language is scary, is that what we are really in for...a catastrophe? One point in the article I was surprised about as a future teacher is the cuts in headstart and for schools that are falling apart. Those to me are issues that need to be addressed and not pushed under the rug.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Spending does = stimulus. And that is the point I see most people missing. Senator McCain says that the bill is a spending bill and not a stimulus bill, but I am still scratching my head over what his distinction between the two is. The problem, at least as I understand it, which we are potentially facing is that due to the problems with the financial markets, people, and specifically businesses, are having a hard time getting money. This causes businesses to struggle and lay off workers. Which causes people to have less money to spend to keep the economy going. Which in turn makes more businesses go under. The standard conservative solution of tax cuts is not going to stimulate the economy, what I see right now is not a demand for tax cuts but rather a real need to pump money into the economy to keep money flowing, to create jobs, and to inspire confidence in investors. I have seen many blogs and quotes from economists saying that the 800 billion is actually only about 2/3 of what is needed to get this economy in good shape, but instead we have the republicans in congress cutting spending for infrastructure and job-creating programs in favor of tax cuts. My response to people who worry about how we are going to pay for this stimulus is that if the economy is actually stimulated, as is the point of the stimulus, then we should be able to turn this recession around eventually, which is worth the investment. My question for those who favor a tax cut approach is this: if you lose your job because the business you work for goes under and you cant find another job because the economy never picked up again, how is a tax cut going to help you participate in whats left of the economy?

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Expansion of government is the last thing we should be doing right now. The whole reason we are in this mes is because of government regulation on banks forcing them to give loans to people that shouldn't have qualified for them. The tax cuts included in the stimulus bill are where we need to focus, putting money back in the hands of individuals and out of the government will help put us back on the right track. Today the DJIA fell 382 points on the news of the bank bailouts. This should be clear to everyone that the market is reacting extremely negatively to something that in the eyes of many should provide and incentive for it to go up. We need to work on free market solutions to this problem and involve the states more in this process. While some federal government intervention is obviously needed to help us get out of this mess, we can't just keep handing out money to companies with no negative consequences if they happen to squander it away.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's common sense people. Who manages money better, 300 million people, or 1000 assorted government officials in Washington. I think the three million Joes and Sallys deciding what they need most in their life. Obviously the people do not want any government agency taking more money from them or you would see them in the streets with placards saying "raise taxes" "support government spending" but in all my life I have yet to witness this, so it must not be a priority of the American people. State governments have obviously created more programs that the populations don't support, so they beg their buddies in Washington for assistance. I say go Reagan whack domestic spending, and here I might surprise a few of you but hell I'm gonna say it whack a few $$$ of the pentagons budget. Heck it'd make my day if you took the axe to medicare too!! All things considered I believe every time you let an American citizen or enterprise take more $$$ home every month, not at the end of the year, you'll see them more willing to spend their $$$. Now if we want to be honest citizens lets look at the constiution.In Section 8 it lists these purposes of congress. I ask of u oh citizens, does this legislation follow those guidelines or does it overreach them. But hell they've been doing this to us for years, no reason to change now. I'm sure the majority will be reelected to to represent you all in the next election with great fanfare.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think we do need to pass this stimulus bill. With our economy where it is, we need to do something drastic. If the money is put in the right places, helping to maintain and create jobs, then I believe it will be helpful. I don't believe that the senate should have removed so much money from state and local governments, but I do agree that cuts need to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not an economic expert but I understand that the economy has its ups and downs. Some last longer than than others. I believe we need to relax and let nature take its course. Let the recession go undisturbed. I believe the next great depression is not around the corner. If companies and business go under (like the auto industry) maybe in the long run its better.

    Lets compare the economy to the human body. Sometimes we get sick from a virus. We become sick but our bodies react and fight it off and become healthy. We build an immunity to it. Our economy is sick. We will soon weed out the viruses (the inefficient businesses)and will become a healthy economy again. It takes time. We don't need to freak out and try to "save" the economy and spend more money. We need to focus on our debt.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I feel alot of the dissenting opinion on the stimulus package is due to a lack of understanding, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way. It is impossible to expect any citizen to understand the policies and economics that come from such an enormous package. The average American cannot tell you whether tax cuts or money to programs will be better. Both would help and hurt someone.

    In addition, many people assume this plan is only for the economy and that it has arose for the purposes of helping the current crisis. This may be the case in theory but unfortunetely it has quickly spiraled into a list of things Congress people want. What started out as a worthy idea to create job programs and get money to the consumers is now polluted with excessive and dangerous pork. I feel Obama needs to use his authority to redirect the stimulus package to pertain to issues dealing with stimulating the economy. This is not the time for Democrats and other Obama supportors to get the special projects the feel they deserve for helping him get to office. Those things will come with time, but this is certainly not the time. Much of the poor financial planning and budgeting that lead to the current recession is being portrayed in the excessive and unnecessary spending. The plan needs to be redirected and changed to reflect the help the economy truly needs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think its great that congress is working hard to figure out a fix, but I think they are trying to rush through it. When you rush you make more mistakes. Rather than having a dead line they should just work on it until they know that its going to help. I really dont know much else about what has been going on with the stimulus package.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Republicans proudly set the policies of the past 8 years that got our country into this mess. Now they are marching in lock-step to proudly oppose President Obama's stimulus package. Because they are not being allowed to ram their demands(that they be allowed to continue their failed methods and policies of the past 8 years) down every ones throats they are whining about "this is so partisan". Well tough luck and suck it up! The American People spoke in Nov. and your methods lack support. It looks like republicans are willing to put the financial security of their nation at further risk over the thought "If we let Obama and the Democrats implement policies that bring about an actual solution to this mess, it will cost us at the polls for decades!!" And these are the same people who wanted wage concessions from US union-members making $37 an hour before they would support any bailout deal, while seeing no need for wage-concessions from CEOs making $5,000-11,000 an hour. Now there's some real sincerity and 'bi-partisanship' for you.
    The senate wishes to pare down the amount of aid in the stimulus bill that would go to state and local govt, and include tax cuts. Maybe it's time the adults take charge. A sizable portion of Americans sit cocooned in their comfort and accommodate the ridiculous notion that it is okay to cut taxes while fighting two wars, especially amidst a looming domestic financial crisis. But that is wearing very thin finally. The average American has the decency to step up and do what is best for their country, but we haven't really been asked to step up of late.
    Despite ignorant and false claims from talking heads and 'experts' that "FDR's New Deal didn't work!", the opposite is historical fact. Follow the tried and true solution even if you consider it 'spending our way out of this mess'.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have a response to the claim that many people believe that states have to do a better job of cutting budgets now and cannot be turning to the federal government for aid. Our in class exercise of trying to figure out what to cut in Northern Michigan University’s budget was really difficult. To me it seemed like there was nothing that could be cut. Now when I think of someone trying to balance the budget of an entire state, a state that has enough economic woes I have to cringe. I think that aid to the states must be increased in this new bill. I think the percentage of money should be based on the economy sustained in that state, the unemployment rate, and the population. I think population should be thrown into the decision because I don’t think states who have completely mismanaged their finances should be rewarded. However, when an entire state goes down, like Michigan due to the failure of the auto industry something must be done. If Michigan’s tax structure only relies on sales tax something must be done there too, but I think the federal government, with this new bill, should help Michigan with restructuring.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I like the House Bill better than the Senate bill. I think there should be an increase in food stamps. With the cost of food raising I think it’s difficult for people to survive on the stamps let alone afford healthy choices. I like the House Bill better because according to the NY Times article in this blog, “The House puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees.” I think that firing people to create more jobs is counterproductive, but also does not make any sense!
    One of my main issues with the government right now is health care. It’s too expensive and I don’t think the money we pay is worth the services we receive. I don’t like the Senate Bill because it “provides far less generous health care subsidies for the unemployed and lowers a proposed increase in food stamps,” according to the NY Times.
    I also think that the middle class and the poor with take advantage of the Senate plan’s “new tax incentives” will really” encourage Americans to buy homes and cars” because the people who have enough to get by or are barely making it aren’t going to be frivolous. They are going to be tight with money, but the rich who can already afford new homes and cars, who are still living comfortably will benefit from tax incentives when they aren’t the ones without jobs. Maybe I’m missing something here, or I’m not understanding the proposed bill correctly.
    One thing that I admire about president Obama is that according to this article he is still supporting a middle-class tax cut which was one of his campaign promises. Politicians don’t usually keep all their promises, but if he is going to, and so early in this presidency, I think he might really be the change America needs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In regards to the stimulus package.
    I can see the need for action to be taken on our slumping economy and the current credit crisis in our country and that some measure of federal help is necessary.
    However, one thing I find hard to keep hearing is that it will put us further in dept as a nation and only temporarily solve our struggle to regain economic stability.
    What I'm not hearing in any of this is talk of why we're in this situation in the first place and who's responsible for getting us in trouble.
    The irresponsibility of the major banking companies in question not to mention the unhindered military spending that continues to this day has pulled the financial rug out from under our country. And now the federal government is having us bail ourselves out with money our country no longer has on their behalf.
    It's not money that's coming from thin air, it's just darkening the cloud of dept that hangs over every Americans head.
    When people talk of our astronomical national dept they need to think of the reasons it's so out of control in the first place.
    President Obama has been put in the difficult position of having to not only clean up after eight years of national self destruction but to fulfill his own bold promise economic salvation and meet the expectations of a star struck American people.
    Yes it's a huge amount of money but we're faced with a huge problem and I would prefer to see money spent on we the American people than furthering military and and big business agendas as we've seen for the past eight years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It seems strange to me that Democrats are trying to pander to staunch Republicans by making more of the stimulus plan tax cuts, and less of it in the form of aid to states. Bush's tax cuts and stimulus plan did nothing to help the economy, and now we are reaping the negative consequences. It's insane to go through another round of tax cuts and expect the same consequences. Middle income people have cut their spending--regardless of whether they pay sales tax will most likely not incentivize them to buy a new home or car. Contrarily, if we target low income consumers with relief in the form of state infrastructure jobs that require a minimal skill set, that money will be put back into the market place immediately--low income earners don't have a choice but to spend their money on groceries and gas. Nor, come to think of it, do states. Big states like California and Michigan running massive deficits. Aid to states will relieve their financial burden (somewhat). The real problem here is that our nation has a recession mentality and consumer spending will not go up among the middle class until we begin to trust that the economy will turn around. I find that impossible unless the democrats start acting on the promises they made to the American people--help the poor, repeal Bush's tax cuts, turn the economy around. Tick tock.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am for the bill to be passed. Our economy does need something working on it, to get on track. I think that the bill will be a good start to our nations decomposing economy. I also disagree with the president on how he calls what we are up against if we don’t get moving now. We have problems sure, but we don’t need to make any quick irrational decisions. I also agree with cutting things that we can cut from the bill. Any money that doesn’t need to be spent shouldn’t be.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think that the stimulus package could actually be a good thing for our economy. We elected our officials that sit in both houses. Obama, Pelosi, and a majority of the Representatives are for the package. I feel that though many of us are informed, they may know a little better of the situation than us. While I do agree that they are rushing to pursue the completion too quickly, I can see their reasoning. Sometimes you have to risk in order to gain anything. I think that maybe in order to get our economy out of this rut, we are gonna have to take up a little debt first. Significant actions, such as the stimulus package, are going to need pursuing if anything is supposed to get better. Everyone complains about how bad the economy is, and now that measures are being taken many aren't seeing them good enough???????

    ReplyDelete
  33. Credit. Credit is a major factor in this economic downturn, and now we're leveraging our country to the future, again, on credit. The white house has no better ideas for action, so they turn to Keynesian Economics, pay people to dig holes and fill them back up again.
    It is an untested theory, that i hope works.
    I like Obama's approach to bipartisanship in the white house, but dismayed by how democrats and republican's handled it. We need to come together right now, not whine because your parties policies aren't being considered. Now that the bill has passed through Congress i hope it is large enough to carry us through.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think it's about time that Republican and Democratic representives get over their issues with each other and do whats best for the country. Like most presidents before him, Obama hoped to reach across party lines in order to make things happen. Like most presidents before him, he is failing to do this. It isn't the presidents fault, but the representatives from both sides of the spectrum. Each party is trying to throw what they want in to the bill in hopes that the main problem (economic crisis) will be enough to force the other side into voting for it. When the other side refuses to vote for the bill, the one that tried to get their way gets angry and criticises them for not helping the nation. Lets drop all the unneccessary things from the bill so that representatives can solve the problem that they all agree needs to be fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. it is a given that both republicans and democrats have a point in their opinions of this bill. on the one hand, we need time a little more time to deliberate and find more well researched means to effective stimulation of the economy, and it is also a fact that we need this stimulus package as soon as possible.
    what seems like a most logical solution is passing whatever aid both parties may agree upon and pledging to discern more decisively what to do about the rest of the money.
    it is no concern of mine whether or not we use the state or federal government to save the economy, so long as we act towards collective efforts. it has been proven time and time again that capitalism run wild results in service to self interest above all else. the people, through the government, ought be responsible to those who are in need, and in times like these, when more and more fall victim to the greed of a few, we need collective effort towards a sustainable future.

    ReplyDelete
  36. In my opinion they are giving the money to the wrong people. The first installment to the banks that was rushed through is a good example as nothing notable was accomplished.

    If we divide the money between low, and middle income taxpayers and small businesses there would be money to spend on goods, and services.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think it is great that Congress is doing something for the American people. Look at Michigan right now. We are heading toward catastrophe. Other states will come right along with us if our economy continues to fall. It is time to try something different then the average tax cuts. It will take time for things to change though. Don't expect a complete turn around in our economy within months.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This bill is being rushed, and in my opinion Obama needs to come up with a long term plan to help our economy. Something that will slowly boost it and keep it from declining. Giving this money will only cause inflation making our money even more worthless. Our Economy problems are something that need to be really thought about. Its nothing that can be solved in a matter of months, so they need to take there time making a affective plan.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm not sure how I feel about the stimulus plan. I am still confused by the whole idea of spending 800 and some billion dollars when the country is trillions of dollars in debt. I am glad that the focus is now on our nation, instead of some dumb, foreign war. How does the government know that this stimulus plan is going to work? It seems like the risk is greater than the reward...The article mentioned that the stimulus plan includes an education program, however, the article does not mention anything more about this "education program." Everything seems so vague and mysterious.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The roots of the recession lye around job loss and housing conflicts. The original stimulus package may be nice for various special interest groups. But when were in the midst of a recession, now is not the time to be shelling out federal aid to local projects such as school repairs, museums, etc. This type of aid is only temporary help for special areas of work, we need more holistic approaches to halting the recession. President Obama is definately right when he says we need immediate relief, but throwing out a bunch of government money to special projects is not going to provide long term relief to the general middle class as a whole. If it takes time for congress to put together a better and well rounded stimulus package, then so be it

    ReplyDelete
  41. Although i like the idea of a stimulus package i think that it will provide little economic benifit. In my opinion this measure would not provide long term help of our economy, rather it will push our country farther into debt. I think the focus of the package should be on creating jobs. I think the package should have more time to be reformed. If the govenment is going to use billions of dollars i would hope it would do so efficiently

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am an Obama supporter but I think he shouldn't rush into this "stimulus package" deal. Because the republicans are opposing for a reason, Both parties should come together and come up with a compromise that can work.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I will agree that something needs to be done about the state of our economy right, but as far as the efficient and effective plan to do that, I just don't know. On one hand I hear President Obama stressing how important it is that this bill get passed immediately or we will see a catastrophe, on the other hand, there are some saying the bill is not equipped with the best shor-term economic help, it will increase national debt, and cause long-term fiscal harm. I do think that something needs to be done and done soon, but I dont think we should pass something focused too much on short term needs, and have it backfire because it was done too carelessly and hastily.

    ReplyDelete
  44. People keep commenting on the problem that this bill spends too much. I could not disagree more with this. If for instance we simply look at infrustructure, states will be spenind less on infustructre. This reduction in spending equals more money in the states pocket. This money in trun can be used for things like tax cuts. for the new family buying a home it means that their chances of losing their homes goes down...meaning that the credit maret can ease. To a small business it means they can lower their prices, which means that more people will buy their product. This means that bussnesses fail less and stop the fall of property values. TO major corperations, it means that they can stop firing workers. The money is long term but it is good for the whole of the economy. Looking at the big picture is how Obama was elected. Failing to do this will see a continuing failing economy, not unlike hte failings of the republican party.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have mixed feelings about the stimulas package. On one hand I feel like it would be good because it seems like it would helpout parts of the economy at least a little bit. On the other hand I really don't know if this idea is the best way to help. Parts of the package just don't make sense to me, I feel like I would need to learn more about it to support it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I really don't like the idea of the stimulus bill because it just doesn't seem like it will work out long term. I think its time that the country realizes that we have been living beyond our means and we need reduce are spending and start paying off our dept. If that means cutting programs then i think that is something that we need to do But when the stimulus package does go through. I think that it is really important for the states to get some of the stimulus money. The states will have a better idea of how to distribute the money in their given state than the federal government would.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This Economic stimulus plan is an absolute travesty for all freedom loving people in our United States. This plan is going to saddle an entire generation with a burden of debt with interest due.

    FDR's New Deal failed to free us from the Great Depression. Johnson's "War on Poverty" failed decrease poverty. "The Great Society" plan failed it's entire objective. Yet still the democrats spend. Not their money! This time not even our money! They are spending Chinese money!

    Remember capitalism?? This used to be our economic system before we became a welfare nation. How ironic this is! China get's it's feet wet with "a bit" of free market capitalism. Now they are loaning us money so we can do what? Become even more in debt? To help pay our debt? Remember, that unpaid debt on homeloans is what rocked out nations economy to begin with.

    Economic freedom. The ability to spend your income as you wish. Whether this may be to invest in your own business, or to donate your income to help the poor. Our government feels they can spend my income more wisely than I. They take the income I earn or the profit I create. My freedom will now be even more diminished, as yours will too. The shame of this is, I voted for a Democrat for the first time in my life. Within a month they have went on a spending spree that will be owed on for the rest of my life.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don’t believe the government can drive the economy, maybe in the short term they can have a minimal affect on the market but I believe it is impossible for the government to drive the economy. The economy is driven by millions of people making billions of decisions everyday on what to do with their money, not the government. The smoot holley act (high tariffs/government intervention) was one of, if not the leading cause of the great depression. Herbert Hoover funded infrastructure programs at that time to try and boost the economy. Where did you think the Hoover damn came from? Sure this created jobs, but I argue that it did not help the economy. Then we had F.D.R, who came along after Hoover with the “new deal” and basically put Hoover’s plans and spending on steroids which prolonged a depression into “the great depression”. It wasn’t until world war two that production, production, production got us out of the depression. The Infrastructure projects did not work then, and I do not believe they will work today. In today’s “stimulus package”, aside from a lot of pork, what I see is infrastructure. I believe Bush is todays Herbert Hoover, and racked up deficits, and now Obama is FDR who is going to put Bush’s spending on steroids. I sure hope it doesn’t take a world war 3 to get us out of this recession or depression or whatever the media is calling it now. I see this bill as fiscal child abuse and a slap in the face as a young person and a capitalist. I cannot support it in any way. All I hear in the media is how bad and terrible the market is, how nobody has jobs, how companies are going bankrupt. Is it possible that these businesses failed because they were a poor business? Is it possible that if Chrysler goes under, ford and gm become stronger? The “auto industry” is doing terrible, what about the auto part business? Auto service business? Wasn’t our unemployment rate much higher in 1980 under Jimmy Carter? Did the bank bailouts work? Aren’t the banks we bailed out all, doing far worse since the bailouts? Has the economy been benefiting from large government spending we have already spent? Do these things I am saying mean anything to anyone? Am I the only one who thinks the government has become drunk with my money? Am I the only one asking these questions? A wise man once said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"…. that man was Ronald Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I really don't think it should come as a great surprise that the legislature is not agreeing with Obama on this stimulus package. there is a divided government and this country has a history of butting heads over politics. The parties never like to agree with one another and now is no different. The democrats criticed Bush the whole time he was in office and not It is the Republicans turn to take a few shots. However if the current stimulus package is in the country's best interest rivalries will need to be set aside to serve the people.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Have any of you ever heard of "The Grapes Of Wrath", great book. Terribly tragic story. I think it's this kind of future that President Obama is trying to avoid. I'll say that the first few bail out plans were idiotic. The government took tax payers dollars and gave it to companies who in turn kept it amongst themselves, and their CEO's. Another prime example of the wealthy helping out the wealthy. The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work. Reaganomics is a travesty. Greed has a way of making people hoard, not spend.
    As far as this stimulus package is concerned, I think it's a lot better than the other ones, but I don't think it's money is divided up enough to actually cause an upturn in our economy. I think it will help to stabalize it though. A hell of a lot more than tax cuts to the rich, and the cutting of government aid programs. I guess what it all boils down to is just how much money is a life worth? I know I'd be willing to be in debt the rest of my life to save a starving childs.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ok, the problem I have is that the vast VAST majority of americans have: jobs or can get a job if they are willing to, have a roof over their head, and have food on the table. I think implying me to: "be in debt the rest of my life to save a starving childs" is absolutely ABSURD. That is not at all what the stimulus package is about, and I do not buy that marketing ploy. I do respect your argument tho. However instead of "the grapes of wrath" I think you should read about tulipmania.. which in many ways is similar to the Obamamania of today. Many people just go along with a crowd and support spending ignorantly simply because the crowd is. I think alot of people supported obama just cause everyone else was, and I think alot of people ignorantly support the stimulus package just because so many people are telling them it is so awesome. Tulipmania also puts into perspective just how powerful crowds are. I think alot of america has become dilusional because of this madness of "change" we are always hearing is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am split on the idea of the stimulus package. I think that part of the reason that Republicans are so against is because of how much Obama is pushing it. With him saying that it could be a catastrophe if not passed soon. I think that Obama is focused too much about keeping his promise that he made in his candidacy rather than focusing on what is best for the economy in the long run. I think that the stimulus package will have immediate benefits, but is it the best idea for the long term, I don't know.I think that some of these cuts need to be reevaluated and taken another look at. Do they really think that cuts should be made on education and the head start program. I do not think that is will have a good outcome. I know that something needs to be done to fix our economy and soon, but I am unsure if the stimulus bill is the best plan.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm in agreement with Paulie Alto. I have read the Grapes of Wrath several times and while I don't think that we would be in that kind of trouble anytime soon, if the current problems arn't fixed it is a definite possibility. Taking money from hardworking taxpayers to bail out corporate CEO's makes no sense. If they need the money that badly imagine how much more the poor or middle class workers need it. I don't completely understand this stimulus package and have probably not heard all the details that it contains, but from what i have heard and read it seems to be for the country's best interest. Politicians need to remember that they serve the country and it's people, not the corporations and their own wallets.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I am pretty undecided on the stimulus package. I am not sure that it is the best way to get the American Economy back on track. I think something needed to be done but Im not sure handing out money is the best way. The partisanship displayed with the argumentative stages of this bill were terrible and i believe that some of the politicians that were so adamantly opposed to it were opposed because it was the brain child of Obama. If our country is going to get back on track we need to work together and find a happy medium. Without the understanding that everything that is being done is for the betterment of the American people. If the faces were attached to the bills I think politicians would be more eager to help and more creative in the solutions they were proposing.

    I hope the stimulus works and only time will tell if it does. In recent weeks it seems that it has been helping and I hope the trend continues.

    ReplyDelete
  55. having my posting come so late and after the passing of the 838 billion dollar stimulus bill was already passed by congress, i feel that my view is futile. I do not understand why it is the taxpayers responsibility to bail out the irresponsibility exhibited by people who partake constantly in deficit spending. It is the fault of the entire system and personal irresponsibility that a individual with a low paying job can get a house with a balooning mortgage and minimal downpayment on a 300,000 dollar home.
    Although this is not the whole problem which has caused the recession, it is the principal behind the issue that has led to such negative effects on our economy. I feel as if the stimulus package was too hastily executed, and in many cases we cannot even see what exactly is being done with the money. There could have been other options that to just give everyone 838 billion dollars when we are already trillions in debt. I think that the stimulus package may show some results initially but will not remove the overwhelming debt and ideology that Americans can buy whatever they want, whenever thye want because they have the credit availiable.

    ReplyDelete