House Passes Stimulus Bill

The House just passed the stimulus bill by a vote of 244-188. I think 2 NO Republicans voted for the bill.

NYTimes report.

< The Yoo Conundrum For The Obama Justice Dep't | Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Holder for AG >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    2 of them (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    As a firm believer in the "50 Republicans + Joe Lieberman" paradigm, I pronounce this bill a bipartisan success.

    I was wrong (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:20:50 PM EST
    No Republicans voted for the bill.

    BTD, wish you had included these numbers (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    that surfaced down-thread. It now appears that:

    *27 Dems voted "Nay" on the stimulus bill.
    *12 Dems didn't vote either way.

    Obama is winning NO support from the GOP and he can't even keep his own party members in line. This all looks really bad.


    Wow (none / 0) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    Are there ANY moderate Republicans left in the House?  Any at all?

    Um no? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    I mostly agree that the post-partisan stuff is (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by magster on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    bogus and that Obama weakened himself by his appeals to the GOP, but man, NO Republicans at all?  Obama's concessions and reaching out to GOP were pretty well publicized, and the GOP's perception as petty obstructionists who don't give a cr*p about this country or the economic problems has got to be a huge danger for them. Especially now that the media is lumping the GOP on Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails" statement.

    If the economy bounces back before the next election, the GOP is doomed.  


    If the economy bounces back (4.73 / 15) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:43:08 PM EST
    the GOP is doomed no matter what.

    Their only chance is Obama to fail on this. That is why he should spend no time worrying about the GOP and instead worry about getting the policy right.

    there is nothing the GOP is going to do that will effect their political fortunes.

    Obama is either going to be FDR or Jimmy Carter.


    "Obama is either going to be... (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    "Obama is either going to be FDR or Jimmy Carter."

    This may be the comment of the year.

    So far ;-)


    Pass the ideal progressive bill (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    in the House--ignoring the Republicans.  Then do a deal in the Senate with a Republican Senator or two only if  it is absolutely required to break a filibuster.....

    Obama does get points for trying to be post-partisan--but Lucy pulled away the football one more time.....No need to go there again in the House.


    Or Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Coral on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:54:59 PM EST
    after 94

    I usually attempt (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    to center my thinking around the now and what is needed and rational, but I'm never playing chess with you!

    More ranting... (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:45:33 PM EST
    Obama's got a 70+% approval rating and we're a week removed from over 2 million people crowding the mall for change... and not one Republican wanted to try to ride those coattails? I thought there'd be at least 10 GOP'ers voting with the Dems today.

    how could they possibly ride those coattails? (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:55:20 PM EST
    Is the concept that Obama is a Democrat and they are Republicans that difficult to understand.

    Look, if they think this is a bad bill, why should they vote for it?

    for the sake of "bipartisanship?" That is ridiculous.


    By saying (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by magster on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    "Obama reached out and improved this bill.  While I normally wouldn't vote for this, just think how bad it would have been if we didn't sit down with Obama. I voted for this so that we can continue to have Obama make improvements on future bills...la la la"

    Obama can now justifiably label the entire GOP as beholden to Rush Limbaugh, who want the country to fail out of spite.


    Let us remember (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:01:48 PM EST
    that Reagan was successful in getting Democrats to cross the aisle on his bills not just because he was a charismatic and popular guy, but because those Democrats were moderates and conservatives who actually agreed with Reagan on a lot of the things he wanted to do.

    This is a point that Krugman developed at length in his most recent book.  Congress has become much more polarized over the years.  The sort of moderate Republican who could be convinced to ride Obama's coattails just doesn't exist any longer, they've all been voted out.  The Republicans who are left simply disagree with Obama's ideology at a fundamental level, and that's why they're not coming along for the ride.


    Well, Obama doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    seem to agree with Krugman's ideology either.  Who's ideology does he agree with?

    No one really knows (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by esmense on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    Now that is a question right now (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    that can cause a loss of sleep.  We've already missed the best window available out there to do something meaningful stimuluswise in the short term.  The coming year is going to be a super bummer no matter what happens, but what does happen now will shape the year after that and the year after that and how well we will all recover and if we will all recover.  If there is no method to the madness outside of healing partisanship that cannot be healed, where does that leave we the little people next year and the year after that?  

    Keynes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by zyx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    Spending as much as they dare...I understand that they are hesitant to spend more, though some say more is needed. It is scary.

    Look, there is not a lot of consensus about what the magic bullet is to fix this. It isn't something that has happened often and been successfully fixed before! But I sure as #### think that it would be helpful if everyone--you, me, and the GOP, would say, we're with this, let's give it a try. Because a lot of a recession/depression is psychological.

    The GOP is really being hateful.


    Obviously (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:23:16 PM EST
    As far as this bill goes, all those who voted for it.

    If you are actually serious about comparing a range of opinions about this bill the NYT has 8 opinions. No Krugman is not chiming in.

    But I think you only point, which is consistent, is that Obama is a right wing stealth misogynist, no?


    Apparently (none / 0) (#77)
    by coast on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    12 Dems didn't want to ride those coat tails either.  Maybe because the bill as written is outrageous.  The tax cuts could have been smaller and more targeted and the spending could have been better targeted as well.  Targeted and IMMEDIATE spending on infrastructure would help all of the companies that have annouced massive layoffs over the last several weeks.  Some of this spending is nothing more than the government gorging itself on our tax dollars.

    AMEN!!!! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:50:53 PM EST
    Look I'd prefer tax cuts but if the spending was really going into the economy, schools, bridges, etc... that'd be one thing.

    But it isn't.

    It's standard demcratic spending.  That's fine.  but don't pass it off as a stimulus.   It's nothing more then 8 years of frustration with our tax dollars.

    It won't work.


    And rethugs have been (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:10:20 PM EST
    screaming tax cuts and trickle down since Reagan.  It did not work then, it will not work not.  We have been trickling up to the rich and the corporations since Reagan with a four year respite with Bill Clinton (until the hateful right wing decided to destroy him and push the phony tax cuts are best for the economy) and 8 years later here we are.

    NO THANKS ...been there, done that, it fails.


    Tax were but a small (none / 0) (#122)
    by coast on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 07:31:53 AM EST
    part of the mess that we are in now, but if it makes you feel better to keep beating that drum then go ahead.  I'm a pay as you go guy.  Were tax cuts the smartest move when your fighting two wars, of course not.  But it not the only reason why we're in this mess.  And repealing the tax cuts aren't going to get us out of it either.  Dressing a social engineering bill up like a stimulas bill isn't going to help us either.  I don't mind having issues like family planning and "neighborhood stabilization", whatever the definition of that is, being debated.  Given the make-up of the house, these issues would likely pass.  But debate them and let them stand on their own merits.  Creating a position at a family planning center creates one job that pays probably in the neighborhood of $10-$15.  Push the money towards infrastructure and you create multiple jobs.  Money goes to build roads, bridges, whatever.  They higher a laidoff construction worker.  They need machines and tools to do the job.  The factory highers the workers they recently laid off.  The facoctory now has money and enough orders to then pay to update their computer network.  The IBM guy now has work.

    Social programs have their place, and its not in this bill.  Remember this is borrowed money, we're all going to be paying for this for years to come.  Its going to pass, so why not make it something that actually works.  We don't have to look back too far to see bills passed that total huge amounts of money that did not do what they were suppose to do.


    Without reform of our trade practices, it won't (none / 0) (#112)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:56:05 AM EST
    matter how much money is thrown at this issue. We're not hearing how this stimulus is going to subsidize and incentivize manufacturing and bring back good middle class jobs...

    is this a trick question? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:28:07 PM EST
    Are there ANY moderate Republicans left in the House?

    possibly, some good may come of this. pres. obama might figure out (he's a smart guy) that the democratic party controls the legislative and executive branches of government, pretty strongly. they don't need the republicans, at all, to get the job done.

    proclaim loudly, throughout the land, that the republicans are naught but obstructionists, bound and determined to do nothing for "joe sixpack", at the expense of their corporate masters.

    the republicans have nothing of substance to offer, merely the same useless, "conservative" policies that nearly destroyed the country for the past 8 years.


    Just because they didn't vote (none / 0) (#9)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    for it doesn't mean they don't want it to pass.  It was going to pass anyway, because it is Obama's bill and the Democrats don't have the courage or desire to fix it.  I would imagine there are many Republicans who are quite happy with the bill as is stands.  

    Yep, the got Obama to drop.... (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    ...the family planning and they didn't have to do anything.

    If the PPUS was just a negotiating tactic (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    or a way to expose the GOP for what they are, then the next bill introduced should have the family planning money in it.  They can paint the GOP as idealogues and still get something good for the people.

    But I'm not holding my breath.


    Dem cat, I see where you're coming from, but (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    The GOP has never been shy about being "ideologues", or showing their "true colors" as somebody said elsewhere on this thread.

    The GOP flaunted their wacko aversion to family planning; and they subsequently got Obama to agree with their ideological stance on omitting family planning funds from the stimulus bill. For good measure, they did it without giving him a single vote in return for the concessions he had made.

    I'd be surprised if Obama would support the idea of including the family planning funds in any future bill. The GOP could crow that he'd flip-flopped on the matter, ad nauseam.


    I gotta (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    ask, how many jobs will the family planning money make?

    I don't have a number (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    but I assume you are not under the impression that family-planning assistance and women's health are typically administered by robots.

    Us Robots have ... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:43:24 PM EST
    other uses.



    I predict zero (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:12:00 AM EST
    You telling me they are need to hire for that?  I am sure you have a link.  

    Here's a good overview (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by chezmadame on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:56:13 PM EST
    of the health care subsidies in the stimulus package:


    The subsidies will provide relief to states as well as to the uninsured, the unemployed, and the struggling, working poor.

    Not every subsidy in the package creates jobs.


    I love it (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    the so called "liberal leaning" MSNBC has had Chris Matthews, hero of some of the progressive blogs for his blatant CDS, going on and on and on and on about how stupid the democrats are for making "birth control" a part of the stimulus.  He had all his good old boys on every day trashing the dems.  And yet still some on the left love them some Chris Matthews.  And of course so called liberals like KO and Rachel avoid talking about it at all.....

    we are still playing the same game as the last 8 years.  It's always the democratic congress' fault.
    And now even President Obama is siding with the repugs and the media that it is all the fault of the lefty congress.  Sheesh


    Disgusting, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    Worse, Reid thought Matthews, who built his career (none / 0) (#113)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:00:24 AM EST
    on Clinton's impeachment and ridiculizing Gore in 2000, as a great democratic choice to run for the senatorial seat against Specter. Matthews even confessed that he turned conservative under the Reagan era and that he voted for Bush! I swear, the party is pathetic!

    I dunno (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    it's fine to imagine things, but is there any evidence?  Do we really think that deep down, right-wing Republicans secretly agree with us on what policies are best for the country?

    Well, they like tax cuts, (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    and the bill had plenty.  Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "us."  I don't agree that Obama's stimulus plan is best for the country.  I think it is seriously flawed because it is not large enough and contains about half the money for spending that is needed.  I think Republicans probably got about the best they could have expected from this.  Their banks are still being bailed out, and Obama is setting the democratic party up for disgrace once the half-measures fail to do the trick.

    Do you think (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    the Republicans believe in their hearts that the bill will work, and yet they all voted against it to make sure that they get no credit for its success?

    Or do you think they believe it will not work, yet they're still secretly happy with it because it's "the best they can get"?  How can a bill that doesn't work be the best you can get?

    I'm afraid I'm just not understanding what you're arguing here.


    First off, I'm not a (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    republican.  Just trying to look at it from their perspective.

    As I said, at the end of the day a bill will be passed that have massive tax cuts, some spending but not as much as what liberals really want.  Given that a Democrat is in the white house and has majorities in both branches of congress, I would think that most Republicans would think that this is about as much as they could ask for.  And tax cuts and as little spending as possible (except to bail out the rich, which they are also getting with TARP, etc.) are affirmatively what they always want.

    Now, as to whether they want the bill to fail or succeed in terms of the American public's view at the next election, I agree with BTD that of course from their perspective they want it to fail so they can hang a bad economy around the Democrat's necks.  But, even if it suceeds in the public's eye (which I personally doubt it will) they will just say it is because of the tax cuts, which they opposed here only because they would have put in even more tax cuts.  

    How they ultimately vote now on the bill doesn't much matter.  


    I almost jumped out of my seat when I read (none / 0) (#117)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:36:26 AM EST
    the following in my Houston Chronicle yesterday morning:

    "The Senate shows signs of bipartisanship,including a decision in the Finance Committee on Tuesday to add a new tax break for upper middle-income taxpayers, at a two-year cost of $70 billion. It was advanced by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the panel's senior Republican."

    They are all going to tax break us into bankruptcy, at this point I feel they are all going to do the country more harm than good and wish they would do nothing and let the economy straighten itself out by itself.


    No the Republicans WON the day. (5.00 / 8) (#50)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:29:53 PM EST
    This is not about the best - it IS the best.

    No one is happy - the cash outlay is too small and they got a lot of stuff cut out like infrastructure monies that would really help people and the Democrats.

    Lucky we pulled back or we might have had no Republicans vote for the bill - oh wait - that's what happened anyway.  Okay, we'll lucky we pulled back because the Republicans won't be so mean to us since we acquiesced.  Oh wait, they'll be just as mean and now they'll be even bolder!  It is all good right?  We've emboldened the "enemy" by cowering to their demands.  Oddly, they were so wrong when they used that phrase for so many years and here when they aren't likely to say it out loud they are totally on the money.


    This excerpt from the transcript of the (none / 0) (#115)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:12:06 AM EST
    Lou Dobbs show from last night is enough to scare anybody to vote against it:

    "And this economic stimulus package, it is indeed a spending and borrowing bill. Because so much has been moved in and out of it over the past just 24 hours, we only know for sure that it is more than $800 billion and somewhere near $900 billion. And we do also know that our government simply doesn't have a dime to put into it to fund it. The government will have to borrow every dime of that $900 billion or whatever the number is finally. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than $350 billion in interest will have to be paid because they are borrowing all of that money whenever it's finally passed. That would add another 40 percent to cost of the spending bill.

    Economist Alan Sinai (ph) studied the plan, he says the deficits this year and next year, as a result, will be between 10 and 12 percent of our gross domestic product. That would be the largest share in American history. It's more than double the level that we had under President Reagan, for example. Sinai also expects gross federal debt to rise from 70 percent of GDP to 90 percent by the end of 2011. Consider if you will, what that means for future generations of Americans.

    Are they going to stimulate us into bankruptcy? Are we going to be another Argentina of the 1970s?


    Same exact thing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    they tried to do with Bush on TARP, hope it passes in the end, but make the pres. and the Dems own it.

    not anymore... (none / 0) (#19)
    by jedimom on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    sorry Gillibrand just moved to the Senate
    ba ba bum

    sorry sorry couldnt resist and I like Gillibrand a lot!!!


    You are funny! (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:41:22 PM EST
    By the way, did you see where Carolyn McCarthy actually donated money to both of Gillibrand's campaigns for Congress?  "I guess I didn't know what her position was on gun control," the story goes.

    Are there any left in the country? (none / 0) (#27)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:43:50 PM EST
    Speaking of Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    Davo's. Putin Speech. . . then Q+A's.

    First up: Michael Dell. He praised Russia's technical and scientific prowess, and then asked: "How can we help" you to expand IT in Russia.

    Putin's withering reply to Dell: "We don't need help. We are not invalids. We don't have limited mental capacity."

    Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:30:31 PM EST
    should put that one on file when Repubs start suggesting their usual solutions.

    "We don't need help. We are not invalids. We don't have limited mental capacity."


    lol (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jedimom on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    ahh that Putin what a kidder! seriously guess the One's talk with Medvyev telling him we wont pursue missle defense didnt change EVERYONE'S mind on the innate goodness of the USA

    perhaps Putin isnt interested in importing our capitalist system, cant imagine why, what with it causing a recent global collapse after going unchecked for 8 yrs..



    One thing is obvious (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    Putin doesn't trust Bush Republicans.

    Um, Russia's had (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:48:31 PM EST
    a capitalist system for quite a few years now, actually.  And it's in vastly worse shape than ours.  In fact, life in Russia is pretty much what the communists said it would be if the capitalists were allowed to take over.  Just sayin'.

    Nor did a single Republican vote (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    for Clinton's Omnibus Budged Reconciliation bill in '93.

    One thing you gotta say for the Republicans, they march in lock-step.  

    Off a cliff (none / 0) (#98)
    by WS on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:57:16 PM EST
    The Republicans are taking a big gamble. Oh well, I guess they like losing.  

    Except that they took over the Congress (none / 0) (#99)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    in '94.

    aaah, to wish that democrats would be (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:15:35 AM EST
    that loyal to their ideals! The reps have to be admired for their unified stance even if it's wrong!

    As I've always said, the Republicans will be (none / 0) (#110)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 02:25:38 AM EST
    'bipartisan' only when they are urging Democrats to vote their way. That is their only definition of bipartisanship--when they get what they want. Otherwise, the concept doesn't really exist for them.

    Boehner had already told the Republican caucus to vote against it two hours before Obama arrived to discuss it. I hope that Obama quickly realizes that his appeals for bipartisanship from the Republicans will likely fall on deaf ears.

    Obama doesn't need to make concessions if he knows they'll vote against him irrespective of the legislation's merits.


    Hey, Obama got all the moderate (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    Republican vote. Good for him!!
    Which moderate Republican votes will he get in the Senate? Lieberman?

    The real change (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    is going to come in the Senate. If it is still recognizable as the same bill that passed the House, I will be very surprised.

    This is Really Only Round One... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by santarita on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    The Senate will pass its own version of the bill.  And then I believe it will go to a House-Senate Conference to hash out the differences.  And then that Report will go back to the respective Houses.  

    There is going to be some horse trading, for sure.  Don't the Senate Dems need at least two or three Republicans to insure a filibuster-proof bill?  


    Like I said in another post (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:36:05 PM EST
    Obama said he wants 80 "yeah" votes in the Senate.

    Wanna take bets as to if that happens?


    I'm betting on the hand he spits in :) (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    Republicans didn't vote because it's a (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:49:55 PM EST
    terrible "stimulus".

    No one on hear is making any sort of sensible argument about why it will work.  

    Haven't we been down this road before?  Wasn't TARP going to fix this?  Wasn't the bipatisan bill last Winter going to help?  Now we're supposed to believe that spending an additional $825billion we have to borrow is going to help?

    Ridiculous.  this won't work and dems will own it.  That's why Republicans didn't vote for it and smart democrats (good job Ellsworth) didn't either.

    Ridiculous Republicans, indeed (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:53:24 PM EST
    TARP was never meant to be a stimulus package. It was a bailout of the financial industries.

    A big part of this package was the monies to the states. That dough is crucial. Without it, states and counties and cities will just shut down.


    Brad Ellsworth is one of the most (none / 0) (#68)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    conservative Democrats in Congress (Progressive Punch says he's the 3rd most conservative). He might be smart, but I think it's ideology that drives this vote.

    Fair enough but my prediction (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:03:34 PM EST
    is in 2010 he'll be able to say he didn't go along with the herd and vote us into the economic mess this "stimulus" won't do anything to help.

    It's a sad day for the American Taxpayer.


    slado, (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    could you show the rest of the class your nobel prize in economics? you know, like the one paul krugman won just recently? the same dr. krugman who seems to feel that the immediate impact of the proposed stimulus bill, while certainly far from perfect, is the type of economic shot in the arm the country needs.

    i know we'd all love to see your nobel prize in economics slado, maybe you could post a picture of it here?


    Ummm! those taxpayers are (none / 0) (#104)
    by hairspray on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:05:57 PM EST
    the same ones who are losing their homes and jobs.  Which taxpayers are you talking about?

    Heh (none / 0) (#79)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    Maybe it won't work, but that's not why Republicans didn't vote for it.

    Republicans wouldn't know a stimulus plan if it got up on the table in front of them, wearing a pink tutu, singing and dancing "Stimulus days are here again".

    All they can think of is.. "uhmm.. tax cuts? and.. more tax cuts?"


    Let's put it this way ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:29:16 AM EST
    ... it does suck to spend in the ballpark of a trillion dollars worth of borrowed money with the economy weakening and an existing public debt of some astronomical sum.

    However, with interest rates already at zero and private sector spending shriveling day by day, there aren't a lot of options other than Do Nothing.  And that is unacceptable.  That is Treasury Secretary Mellon territory.  Liquidate, liquidate, liquidate.  

    Similarly, it blows goats to spend money on infrastructure in a massive government-administered lump sum, instead of by replacing 1 to 2% of it a year.  However, if you've put it off and ignored it and generally waited for it to become a crisis, then that strategy is not available.  Again, we're stuck.

    So borrow and spend we must.  It's not all bad.  We'll get some fixed infrastructure for it, and some badly needed jobs.  Then the trick will be to come out the other side of this without high inflation, and to take advantage of an improving economy to bring the budget back into balance.  In part through taxing the CEO class to the point where they can't afford to buy the government and use it to run the country into the ground for their own benefit any more, I hope.  

    But I digress.  The point is, yes, this does suck.  But it's not all bad, and good luck to us, because no other strategy is available.  


    Insfastructure? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:01:34 AM EST
    Hardly.  $30billion out of $800 billion.   The big dig cost $22billion and employed 5,000 people.  That's a drop in the bucket and even mentioning it is unrealistic because it won't help anything.

    This stimulus is pork pure and simple.  Our government is in debt and in a couple weeks it will be even more so.  Housing will continue to plummet on and on.

    Questioning my qualifications is simply taking a pass on the debate.  Krugmans for it.  Fine.  There are plenty of economists that aren't.

    Let the debate continue.  I don't think it will work and history will decide who is right.


    Economists (none / 0) (#128)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    Here's my list against the plan.

    Ride or die (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:17:37 PM EST
    this is what the Dems oughta be doing.  Hopefully this is the start of a trend.

    Boy, it sure is good Obama caved (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:51:50 PM EST
    Without the GOP votes, this wouldn't have gone through!

    ...oh wait.

    Jeez what a dumb*ss. Where'd he learn negotiating? By watching 'The Accused'?

    Krugman: (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:53:29 PM EST
    Aren't you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?

    I guess it's really just too much to ask (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:20:54 PM EST
    for some unity of purpose that has at its core a vision that resurrects the economy while doing the most good for the people who need it.  

    I don't know why it's too much to ask, given that we have majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president, but maybe the possibility of success takes the Dems out of their perpetual-victim comfort zone, and pretty soon, the blinking starts and from there it's a short ride to hell.  Except we're the ones taking that ride, and there are no seat belts.

    Whatever the psychology of all of this, the Dems are blowing this, big time, in a way that is going to doom every other complex issue that will come up.

    It's very hard to believe in the integrity of any plan - or to believe they actually believe in the plan themselves - when, right from the get-go, pieces and parts of it are peeled off and discarded as if they don't matter.  I get that there was a drive to get something passed quickly, but I think more time should have been devoted to the bully pulpit, to the PR, to being the ones in front of the microphones talking about the plan, instead of being the ones being talked about, in negative terms, with no pushback.

    If these politicians had even a clue how much real anxiety, real deprivation, real panic there is out here in the real world, maybe they would treat this less like the usual political game and more like the life-and-death issue it is for a growing number of Americans.

    Champagne and Caviar for All (none / 0) (#111)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:56:55 AM EST
    Mr. Obama followed the House vote with a cocktail party at the White House for the Congressional leaders of both parties, from the House and the Senate. The House Republicans, including the minority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, were fresh from their votes against the recovery package.

    Apparently, the recession hasn't hit the Capitol. I fear we are going to see a real surge in WH parties and a red carpet lifestyle for the residents.


    this does piss me off - talk about elitism!!!!! (none / 0) (#118)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:39:51 AM EST
    So much for (none / 0) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    bipartisanship. Too bad, now the repubs can be painted as holding up progress. And voting billions to help banks and holding companies, but not a dime for working people.

    They did not hold up anything (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:19:10 PM EST
    Sigh..no. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by dk on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    If the stimulus bill is actually, by the next election, considered a success, then the Republicans will argue that that is was only the tax cuts that made it so, and that maybe the bill would have been even more successful had there been more tax cuts and less spending than there was.

    If the stimulus bill, as is likely if you believe folks like Krugman, will ultimately end up being unsucessful because it is not spending enough and is disproportionately favoring tax cuts vis a vis spending, the Republicans will just hang the whole mess on the Democrats.

    Now, Obama might have actually avoided this trap by proposing a better stimulus bill, but for reasons we can all debate he decided not to do so.


    You won't have to worry about it (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    This won't work.  If anything it will impede what ever does turn this economy around if that is even possible.

    Government intervention and general greed got us all here.  More debt spending by our government isn't going to get us out.

    For all the griping about deregulation etc... etc... the reality is we've been borrowing and spending more then we can afford for year, Bush included with war etc... and now it's time to pay te piper.

    Borring more against our children's future when there is no fix for Social Security, no fix for Medicare, future plans to nationalize the health system on and on and no money to pay for it.

    It's too depressing to think about.

    Change we can believe in?  Hardly.


    My sentiments exactly! (none / 0) (#119)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:41:23 AM EST
    Yes, but - (none / 0) (#108)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:33:06 AM EST
    they are proud of that, and so is their base.

    sooo (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    are the Republicans principled, or are they meanies who hate bipartisanship?  

    Is Obama a sucker, or a hero for trying?


    Does not matter (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    Only thing that matters is if Obama's programs work.

    You are right (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    but I think the jury is still out on whether Obama has the right political strategy, as well as whether he will follow up by pursuing the ambitious policies that the country needs.

    Those of us in the "politics of contrast" camp figured the Republicans would oppose Obama on anything major because that's how they operate.  We saw how they behaved in 1993-94, we knew they had only grown more conservative as a party since then, and we drew the logical conclusions.  That's why we kept having arguments with fans of the Unity Schtick.

    So we were right.  But it doesn't necessarily follow that Obama was wrong; schtick is schtick, after all.  We can hope he was simply playing chess and figuring "the Republicans' opening move will be to oppose me no matter what, and by going out of my way to appear reasonable and bipartisan I can get the maximum political mileage out of their opposition."

    Maybe that was the game.  But it's only worth something if he actually spends that political capital to get the right policies enacted.  All the usual concerns about how he doesn't seem temperamentally like the new FDR are still valid, but we'll find out one way or another.  One thing is for certain, if Obama's policies are successful in the end the Republicans are not going to be able to claim any piece of them.  It will be their death sentence.


    At this point (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:00:37 PM EST
    the right political strategy is enacting policies that work.

    but he's using the same architects that got us (none / 0) (#120)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:49:49 AM EST
    into this mess, to solve it! I'm not holding my breath that it will stimulate anything except the glee from China for being in a solid position to decide our economic future - everything is in China's hands not Obama's and his economic team! China doesn't lend = doom unless some other countries step up and save us because we do not have a dime to pay for all of this out of control spending!

    I know one thing (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    They are demonstrably terrible economists.

    I say we push to get the Family Planning (none / 0) (#42)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:17:40 PM EST
    back in via the Senate version, as well as a bunch of other stuff we want like HOLC/HOME homeowner relief.  They've shown their colors, they intend to impede our recovery and our issues with their solidarity in undermining our presidents efforts to help our nation.

    It's time to blame them for their wasteful, useless bank bailout and their desertion of the average working American.

    I'm a giant feminist (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    I hope nobody gets me wrong here but I don't care if the family planning is put back into this piece of legislation.  I'm confident in placing it elsewhere and in fact would almost prefer it elsewhere because it does cloud what this bill is about.  The HOLC thing though.........let's face it, this bill without that and zero Republican support is NUTS!

    Really (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    Let's have a stimulus package that focuses like a laser beam on government spending that will produce the most jobs for the buck.  I'm a ferocious believer in spending money on family planning, but it doesn't belong in this bill.  And as you say, we're going to get it soon anyway.

    It just blows my mind that Dems couldn't resist loading this thing up with pet projects and causes like family planning and sod on the National Mall instead of buckling down and making as pristine a job-creation bill as they could imagine.


    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:19:42 PM EST
    Let's limit this spending to projects that will improve the infrastructure!  Let's put new roofs on our elementary schools, let's build bike paths, let's repair the levees in New Orleans and the Sacramento delta, let's repair our cities' sewers, let's wire high-speed cable into all of our schools and libraries.

    Nasty gender gap (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:38:20 PM EST
    Except there's a huge discrepancy in the kinds of jobs that will be created by a purely infrastructure-focused stimulus. Unemployment is currently running roughly 50/50, men/women... and women account for only about 8% of the workforce in the engineering and construction industries that would benefit from infrastructure improvements. Health care, education, service sector -- those are the areas where female workers equal or outnumber male workers. The money for family planning wasn't just about buying condoms -- it was about supporting jobs for women, as well as health care for women.

    Not entirely true (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CST on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    Unemployment is actually higher among men right now, partly because those industries are hurting a lot more than say, health care.  There was a recent article in the Globe about this.  This recession, or at least the beginning of it, was disproportionately male.

    Although, to be perfectly honest, as an engineer, I am biased, and I REALLY want an infrastructure package.  But I'm also part of that 8% or so, so I'll take my family planning too, I just don't mind if it comes a bit later.  Once my job is saved.


    Correction (none / 0) (#123)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    You're right -- the unemployment rate is roughly a percentage point higher among adult men than among adult women. I should have been more specific.

    I wasn't trying to nitpik (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    I couldn't find the overall unemployment stats by gender that were recent enough, the only unemployment related gender analyses I could find was from a few years back.  I was just trying to point out that this particular wave of job losses has hit the male dominated industries harder (in the beginning), so it would make sense to prop them up more.

    Although gryfalcon brings up a good point that the "second wave" of job losses (after the article was written) has hit the service industry and other industries as well where the gender breakdown is very different.

    However, there is also a certain communal benefit you get from propping up infrastructure and health care that you don't get from the service industry as much.  It's a very fine line and a difficult question.  Maybe new jobs in health care could replace lost jobs in the service industry.


    nitpicking perfectly valid! (none / 0) (#126)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    No offense taken, no worries -- you were absolutely right, and it provided me an opportunity to go trawl through the Labor statistics!

    You make a good point (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:12:20 AM EST
    Wonder why no Dem has been able to make the same point in defending the bill?

    I'm not sure family planning is a particularly good way to go about this, though, not least because it's pathetically easy for the Republicans to ridicule it, as they have so very successfully.

    How about a major expansion of health clinics, particularly in rural areas?  Even if they don't have a lot of physicians to staff them, physician's assistants and nurse practitioners would be a heck of a lot more than many of us have reasonable physical access to right now.  And support staff are overwhelmingly female.

    Problem with health care generally, though, is that there's not much unemployment among core health care staff professionals to begin with.

    What would you suggest?  Women are concentrated in the service industry, aren't they, and that's an area taking a big hit in the recession, but I can't think of a way government projects could help with that except tangentially.


    Family planning = clinincs (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    I think the problem with selling the issue is that "Family Planning" has entered into the public mind as equalling "birth control," and so is easy to dismiss by both opponents and supporters. In reality, family planning equals a whole range of health care, centered around Planned Parenthood and other clinic-based health care outlets, which tend to be one of the leading ways that low-income and uninsured women receive health care -- and I believe that's exactly what you're talking about with health clinics in rural areas. And such health care outlets have been struggling over the past decade, with clinics closing all over the country in record numbers. The money that would go toward family planning would go to reopening or expanding those kinds of clinics.

    As you say, the  health care employment picture is actually pretty stable at the moment; the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows jobs increasing, counter to the trends in so many other industries.  


    and tax incentives to bring back the outsourced (none / 0) (#121)
    by suzieg on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 05:51:53 AM EST

    Well ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:38:02 AM EST
    This is Congress we're talking about. :)

    For the record, I am down with the family planning thing, and I wish it had not been removed.


    Is there a break down list on how each rep voted? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Saul on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:25:10 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    Correction (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    been trying to access roll call vote info (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    at the clerk of house site for awhile...won't load..must be others trying as well!

    Open COngress (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    Seems really good, nifty interactional pie charts and links to the individual congresscritters.  

    got through there, thanks (none / 0) (#61)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    Notice (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    12 Dems didn't vote for it either.

    They are fully post-partisan (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:34:38 PM EST
    27 Dems voted "Nay"

    Democrats Voting 'Nay'
    Name                           Voted
    Rep. Michael Arcuri [D, NY-24]     Nay
    Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]     Nay
    Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]     Nay
    Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]     Nay
    Rep. F. Boyd [D, FL-2]             Nay
    Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]     Nay
    Rep. Christopher Carney [D,PA-10]Nay
    Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]     Nay
    Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]     Nay
    Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]     Nay
    Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]     Nay
    Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]     Nay
    Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D,AZ-8]Nay
    Rep. Parker Griffith [D, AL-5]     Nay
    Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11]     Nay
    Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]     Nay
    Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]     Nay
    Rep. James Marshall [D, GA-8]     Nay
    Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7]     Nay
    Rep. Charles Melancon [D, LA-3] Nay
    Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]     Nay
    Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]     Nay
    Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]     Nay
    Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Nay
    Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]     Nay
    Rep. Zachary Space [D, OH-18]     Nay
    Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]     Nay


    I wonder what the story is on this (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:38:35 PM EST
    Voting Nay because of the concessions?

    I doubt it. Most of those Dems are Blue (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    Dog conservatives.

    You (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:47:33 PM EST
    Can cross check all the nay votes here.

    For instance the story about Rep. Michael Arcuri D NY, is here

    Who he votes with the most, least, news articles, sponsored bills.

    If anything I think that his district leans GOP.  


    Link (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    Correction (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    Rep. Michael Arcuri D NY voted yea.

    Correction (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:56:51 PM EST
    I counted 27 (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    Democrat NAY votes and 2 Abstained.

    I'd like to compare the House votes (none / 0) (#57)
    by DFLer on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 06:35:29 PM EST
    with the interactive site at the WSJ posted elsewhere here that showed what funds would go where. Why not just drop the funds for the states that didn't vote for this? That will make it cheaper, and be sure to please the Republicans and their national chair, Rush Limbaugh.

    You should be happy (none / 0) (#90)
    by jarober on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:06:56 PM EST
    This vote provides clarity.  If the Republicans are wrong, and the bill helps, you get to claim success.  If it doesn't, then Republicans will be helped.  Either way, there's a very clear difference on this thing.  Rather than the all too common "political cover" thing, we have actual political clarity.

    But what part of the bill will... (none / 0) (#91)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    ... be the part that works?

    I'm afraid that this bill is like a doctor setting up a treatment program for a seriously ill patient that includes dozens of specific elements like diet change, excercise regimen, lifestyle changes, chemical therapy, laser treatment, radiation treatments, prescription drugs, vitamins, accupuncture, magnets, and a good pet dog.  

    If after a year or two the patient is a little better or a little worse, the doctor will get the credit or blame.  But how can you tell which of the many, many parts of the treatment were actually responsible for the result, and which worked the other way?


    Well.... (none / 0) (#93)
    by jarober on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    That's why the Democrats should have passed the 10 percent or so that will be spent this year, and then taken more time on the rest.  

    Apparently, they went to the post 9/11 Patriot Act school - the one that says it's better to pass a huge bill of gosh knows what now, when you have political capital.

    Speaking of which, given all the "change" I'm supposed to be seeing, why is the Patriot Act still law?


    Obama thought the rush tactic (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by sallywally on Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 10:39:37 PM EST
    would work like it seemed to do on the bank bailout .... that turned out great, didn't it?

    I think he hoped it would force the Repubs to cave to him - but obviously not.

    I wonder if he will cave even more when it goes to the Senate.

    It did need more time and more consideration - but mostly it needed more courage and more backbone.