Senators Making Progress on Stimulus

[ericlp]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6820336&page=1

watch the Video...

I like Obama he makes a lot of sense to me. I like his idea's and the way he speaks.


I think we should just start hanging congress members that want to slow the progress and derail america.... This isn't a game or a joke. We need to do something and it's what people voted for. I believe we should give Obama a chance and at least back him for a few years to see if he can make a difference. Hell, we gave bush a few years. Don't see why we gave him 8, but that's not the point.

Point is, some people still have a grudge and they need to straighten up or ship out.

 

[alchemize]

Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

Iraq was the biggest failed fuckup joke that happened in american history period...

Now back to reality.

It needs to get done... We need a bill. As Obama said it's not perfect but the longer we wait and drag our feet on this ... It's not going to fix it self.

Republicans are gonna have to get over that they LOST, bush is not our president and get with the program.. Period.

 

[Rustler]

? A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
? $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
? $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
? $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
? $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
? $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
? $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
? $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
? $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
? $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
? $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
? $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
? $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
? $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
? $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
? $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
? $500 million for state and local fire stations.
? $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
? $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
? $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
? $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
? $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
? $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
? $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
? $850 million for Amtrak.
? $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
? $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
? $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
? $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations


The President is Letting Pelosi and Reid run this farce!! It needs to get done no debate no matter how much it costs us in the end................LOL

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

Iraq was the biggest failed fuckup joke that happened in american history period...

Now back to reality.

It needs to get done... We need a bill. As Obama said it's not perfect but the longer we wait and drag our feet on this ... It's not going to fix it self.

Republicans are gonna have to get over that they LOST, bush is not our president and get with the program.. Period.

the sky is falling....the sky is falling....

I feel sorry for you that you believe the government is the answer to all of your problems.

Heil Obama!

 

[nageov3t]

after 8 years of being a rubber stamp, it's actually nice to see the GOP grow a pair and challenge some of the aspects of this bill.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

Iraq was the biggest failed fuckup joke that happened in american history period...

Now back to reality.

It needs to get done... We need a bill. As Obama said it's not perfect but the longer we wait and drag our feet on this ... It's not going to fix it self.

Republicans are gonna have to get over that they LOST, bush is not our president and get with the program.. Period.

Yup, signed sealed and delivered with the support of the Dems I agree, let's not tangent on Iraq.

And they lost yup, but guess what, they still have a voice and a vote whether you like it or not. If it was close to perfect it would be a different story. But when huge swaths of this bill are not directly stimulative and instead just represent what I mentioned, then it's worse than doing nothing. Its no different than than Medicare Part D, no different than tax cuts for the rich. It's dems serving their special interests rather than the GOP.

New boss, same as the old boss. Hopefully Obama learns faster than his predecessor.

 

[Rustler]

No wonder the people elected this President...........they are mere followers don't think beyond the liberal cheerleading press tells them to think.....

YOU WILL DO AS YOU ARE TOLD, UNTIL THE RIGHTS TO YOU ARE SOLD.................THATS RIGHT FOLKS DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL...............................

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loki8481
after 8 years of being a rubber stamp, it's actually nice to see the GOP grow a pair and challenge some of the aspects of this bill.

They have nothing to lose because they don't have the votes to block its passage.

 

[Rustler]

The office of OMB said that this bill is so bad it would be better to do nothing that grow government and spend more money in the last two years which is what this bill does.

 

[Rustler]

gotta get 60 votes to pass the senate.................................it may not get any R votes 41 R in the Senate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rustler
? A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
? $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
? $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
? $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
? $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
? $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
? $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
? $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
? $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
? $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
? $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
? $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
? $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
? $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
? $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
? $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
? $500 million for state and local fire stations.
? $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
? $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
? $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
? $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
? $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
? $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
? $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
? $850 million for Amtrak.
? $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
? $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
? $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
? $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations


The President is Letting Pelosi and Reid run this farce!! It needs to get done no debate no matter how much it costs us in the end................LOL

All of that adds up to 2% of the spending on the bill. What's also strange is what sort of things are considered 'pork'. Like the $6 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient. Obama mentioned this in his speech yesterday. Not only does this create jobs for the people that are going to do the work, but it will cut energy costs for the federal government in the long run, saving us all money. So we get short term economic stimulus, and long term benefits from it. That sounds like exactly the sort of stimulus we need.

Complaints about funding for anti-flood and levee projects? Haven't people figured out yet that these are important? (and obviously infrastructure improvements?) I could go on, but that's what I meant in other threads when I mentioned that the GOP was playing fast and loose with what they considered 'pork', and even after all that they could only come up with 2% of the spending.

It's a pathetic partisan play (hey, alliteration!) and you all know it. They don't oppose the largest parts of the bill in any meaningful way, they try to turn the debate to a tiny fraction of it that they think they can rile people up about. Then when Obama hits them back for it, they desperately clutch their chests and scream "what happened to bipartisanship!?!?". Bipartisanship doesn't mean being a pussy, it means being willing to accept some minority input, as the Democrats have already done.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Rustler
gotta get 60 votes to pass the senate.................................it may not get any R votes 41 R in the Senate.

Sure it will. That's why it has 2% pork in it, to buy some GOP Senate votes.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bipartisanship doesn't mean being a pussy, it means being willing to accept some minority input, as the Democrats have already done.

LOL yah not until the bill was actually written. Go Pelosi!

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

As much as I generally despise the GOP, I don't fault them for raising some of these concerns and I agree with many of their criticisms. I feel like I support most of the programs in the stimulus bill, but many of them aren't stimulus, and should be legislated separately.

I still can't believe that the dems were dumbshit enough to let all that pork into the bill - it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP would exploit negative sentiment against this crap and everyone ends up looking bad. I'm sure that the bill is mostly stimulus, but the issue is irreversibly clouded when you put in condom purchases and the like. How can anybody really stand up in defense of the entire bill at this point without looking like a pandering idiot?

Sometimes projecting the image of propriety should be first and foremost on the agenda. If Obama is so focused on reconciliation between the parties, he should realize this. I think he probably does, but it'll be tough for him to do much about it now.

 

[Rustler]

the Dems haven't dont anything bipartisan...........Pelosi " We Won STFU!!" basically
I just listed some of the pork in this bill.............................................................

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Rustler
? A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
? $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
? $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
? $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
? $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
? $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
? $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
? $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
? $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
? $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
? $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
? $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
? $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
? $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
? $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
? $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
? $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
? $500 million for state and local fire stations.
? $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
? $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
? $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
? $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
? $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
? $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
? $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
? $850 million for Amtrak.
? $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
? $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
? $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
? $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations


The President is Letting Pelosi and Reid run this farce!! It needs to get done no debate no matter how much it costs us in the end................LOL

All of that adds up to 2% of the spending on the bill. What's also strange is what sort of things are considered 'pork'. Like the $6 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient. Obama mentioned this in his speech yesterday. Not only does this create jobs for the people that are going to do the work, but it will cut energy costs for the federal government in the long run, saving us all money. So we get short term economic stimulus, and long term benefits from it. That sounds like exactly the sort of stimulus we need.

Complaints about funding for anti-flood and levee projects? Haven't people figured out yet that these are important? (and obviously infrastructure improvements?) I could go on, but that's what I meant in other threads when I mentioned that the GOP was playing fast and loose with what they considered 'pork', and even after all that they could only come up with 2% of the spending.

It's a pathetic partisan play (hey, alliteration!) and you all know it. They don't oppose the largest parts of the bill in any meaningful way, they try to turn the debate to a tiny fraction of it that they think they can rile people up about. Then when Obama hits them back for it, they desperately clutch their chests and scream "what happened to bipartisanship!?!?". Bipartisanship doesn't mean being a pussy, it means being willing to accept some minority input, as the Democrats have already done.

Yeah because who cares about 17,000,000,000.... :roll: What a joke you people are that try to suggest since it's ONLY 3% (which is only a small list of easily picked out items). If 17 BILLION is only 3% then shouldn't it be easy to cut out?
And you are dead wrong - the larger portions have been addressed. They have been properly labeled - SPENDING - not STIMULUS. If these things loaded into this bill actually need funding - why can't Congress put together a SPENDING bill after they put a REAL STIMULUS package together? It's quite easy to see that BHO and his congressional masters are just trying to shove through a bill to pay everyone off under the guise of "emergency" when very little of this is actually stimulative.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

As much as I generally despise the GOP, I don't fault them for raising some of these concerns and I agree with many of their criticisms. I feel like I support most of the programs in the stimulus bill, but many of them aren't stimulus, and should be legislated separately.

I still can't believe that the dems were dumbshit enough to let all that pork into the bill - it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP would exploit negative sentiment against this crap and everyone ends up looking bad. I'm sure that the bill is mostly stimulus, but the issue is irreversibly clouded when you put in condom purchases and the like. How can anybody really stand up in defense of the entire bill at this point without looking like a pandering idiot?

Sometimes projecting the image of propriety should be first and foremost on the agenda. If Obama is so focused on reconciliation between the parties, he should realize this. I think he probably does, but it'll be tough for him to do much about it now.

Especially tough for him after last night's tirade when he addressed the minions at their retreat.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yah because the GOP should just agreed to spend 100's of billions on liberal pet projects and government growth under the cloak of "stimulus". Obama fucked up by letting the failures in congress write this thing.

If dems had 1/10 the spine that the GOP is showing now, we'd never have invaded Iraq. That was no game or joke.

As much as I generally despise the GOP, I don't fault them for raising some of these concerns and I agree with many of their criticisms. I feel like I support most of the programs in the stimulus bill, but many of them aren't stimulus, and should be legislated separately.

I still can't believe that the dems were dumbshit enough to let all that pork into the bill - it couldn't be more obvious that the GOP would exploit negative sentiment against this crap and everyone ends up looking bad. I'm sure that the bill is mostly stimulus, but the issue is irreversibly clouded when you put in condom purchases and the like. How can anybody really stand up in defense of the entire bill at this point without looking like a pandering idiot?

Sometimes projecting the image of propriety should be first and foremost on the agenda. If Obama is so focused on reconciliation between the parties, he should realize this. I think he probably does, but it'll be tough for him to do much about it now.

Obama can do a lot of good things, and I really honestly hope he succeeds. I didn't vote for him (nor McCain) but I'm in general on his side because his failure is our failure.

But he has to get those dipshits in Congress under control. Bush did a phenomenal job of this his first term keeping the GOP in line...Obama hopefully learned his lesson very fast and the next big bill that comes through the pipeline will be crafted by his team rather than that beholden-to-special-interests leftie twit Pelosi and her gang of nitwits.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rustler
The office of OMB said that this bill is so bad it would be better to do nothing that grow government and spend more money in the last two years which is what this bill does.

Oh does it? Please provide a link to this OMB statement, I bet you can't. You know why? Because it doesn't exist.

On the off chance you were referring to the CBO report on the stimulus, I suggest you read what Politifact has to say about it. Basically, that the CBO report states nothing on the significant majority of the spending (tax cuts, unemployment assistance, etc), and only focuses on discretionary spending. In addition it only speaks to the timeline of the spending, not to its efficacy. And finally, it's based on a version of the bill that is hugely outdated.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah because who cares about 17,000,000,000.... :roll: What a joke you people are that try to suggest since it's ONLY 3% (which is only a small list of easily picked out items). If 17 BILLION is only 3% then shouldn't it be easy to cut out?
And you are dead wrong - the larger portions have been addressed. They have been properly labeled - SPENDING - not STIMULUS. If these things loaded into this bill actually need funding - why can't Congress put together a SPENDING bill after they put a REAL STIMULUS package together? It's quite easy to see that BHO and his congressional masters are just trying to shove through a bill to pay everyone off under the guise of "emergency" when very little of this is actually stimulative.

Hey, nice eye rolls. Glad to see you're keeping with the CAD playbook. You will get exactly one response on this, and it is already one more than you deserve. I'm not interested in doing the normal CAD dance with you today, as you're getting pretty tiresome lately.

Yes, what I'm saying is that if the stimulus is important, as both parties say that it is, that to hold it up over 2.7% of its provisions is silly. Of course it's not easy to cut out because what some people consider pork, other people don't. Why would people be any more likely to freely cut out authorizations they consider to be important than those who are against them would freely keep them in?

Your opinion of what is stimulus just happens to be different than what other people consider stimulus. To be honest I would be downright flabbergasted if you could give a coherent definition of 'stimulus' that wouldn't end up applying to the vast majority of spending in this bill. (try it sometime!) That is why you say it is spending, and they say it is stimulus. There is room for compromise on this as has already been done repeatedly in the last week or so, but since the Democrats have won crushing victories in the last two Congressional elections and a significant victory in the last Presidential election, when push comes to shove it will be their definition that counts. Sorry if you don't like that.

 

[Fern]

Lets see:

1. Many Dems/liberals and Repubs/conservatives complained about big spending when the Repubs were in Congress, suddenly this is OK now?

2. "Stimulus" now seems to be defined as any government spending. Why won't the Dems/liberals here now now be consistent and applaude the Repubs for all their "stimulus" bills from 2001-2006?

3. During those years of repub control of Congress we had economists (and posters here) predicitng catastrophe because of the size of the US debt and the resulting huge interest payments on such debts; where are those economists (and posters) now? Has debt (and the interest payments) somehow become less harmful?

4. Obama's discussions regarding stimulus started off promissing a "clean bill" with no pork; what happened to that and why aren't Dems upset?

5. So many spoke of stimulus being infrastruture like roads and bridges. So many here and elsewhere argued how much needed it was. So our stimulus bill has gone from being about generating jobs etc through road & bridge construction to a bill with only a measly few percent devoted to infrastructure. Why do so many of you who pushed so hard for road/bridge infrastructure seem perfectly happy to see it fall by the wayside now? This bill was the perfect chance to get that addressed, now after blowing more than $800 billion on other stuff will be to afford any infrastructure in the future? Highly unlikely.

6. This is an "emergency" says Obama, yet more money will be spent in the 4th year than the first year? WTH??

7. Obama has said the stimulus bill would save/create 3-4 million jobs (that was back when the bill was only at $825 Billion). My math indicates each of those jobs costs between $275,000 to $206,250 (and that doesn't include the interest on the debt). Now that the bill is up over $900 billion those jobs are even more expensive (assuming the predictions work out - good luk with that). Isn't that an outragious per job? Is that a 'good deal' and wise expendtiture of our money?

8. If this bill is really about "stimulus", and not just Dem pork as many assert, why won't the Dems pass the McCain amendment? The McCain amendment says when the economy does come out recession any portion of the $900B not yet spent will be saved. If the money really is for stimulus, why should it be spent after no longer needed for that purpose?

9. If only a very small portion of this money will be spent during the next 12 months why is Obama is engaging in 'economic fear mongering' and telling us we must rush to pass this bill? Why are all those so vocal about Bush's 'fear mongering' suddenly not complaining about this fear mongering?

CHANGE?

'Change' my @ss.

Same ole crap, a bait and switch - infrastrure swapped for other stuff. Typical Washington DC mislabeling of a bill. IMO, it's obviously a lie when the spending hardly takes place now when we need it, when the McCain amendment is not allowed, and when infrastrucre gets short-shrift

Same ole stuff - big deficits, no bigger deficits.

SOS, broken promises.

SOS, fear mongering etc.

Oh, and did anybody notice stupid stuff like credit for new car purchases to (again) help the automakers? How muh money do we have to give them? This credit is nothing more than taxpayer susidized auto purchases. But the really stupid part is that the credit is available for cars purchased starting Nov 17, 2008; why? How could a credit passed this month help boost car sales last year? It can't, so why that give-away? It's not a stimulus in any way.

This bill stinks and we don't yet what is buried in all those many pages.

Fern

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Fern
2. "Stimulus" now seems to be defined as any government domestic spending. Why won't the Dems/liberals here now now be consistent and applaude the Repubs for all their "stimulus" bills from 2001-2006?

Fixed. Spending in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't count. Borrowing to pay for tax cuts so the rich can pad their bank accounts doesn't count.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Fern

7. Obama has said the stimulus bill would save/create 3-4 million jobs (that was back when the bill was only at $825 Billion). My math indicates each of those jobs costs between $275,000 to $206,250 (and that doesn't include the interest on the debt). Now that the bill is up over $900 billion those jobs are even more expensive (assuming the predictions work out - good luk with that). Isn't that an outragious per job? Is that a 'good deal' and wise expendtiture of our money?

There is too much BS to comment on in your post so I will just throw in my 2 cents with this one. Your math is fucking awful. Why? Because you are assuming only a single year's worth of pay for each of those jobs that he is creating. It is only outrageous if you assume that all of those jobs will vanish after a single year...

The only thing here that is outrageous is your poor deductive reasoning.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah because who cares about 17,000,000,000.... :roll: What a joke you people are that try to suggest since it's ONLY 3% (which is only a small list of easily picked out items). If 17 BILLION is only 3% then shouldn't it be easy to cut out?
And you are dead wrong - the larger portions have been addressed. They have been properly labeled - SPENDING - not STIMULUS. If these things loaded into this bill actually need funding - why can't Congress put together a SPENDING bill after they put a REAL STIMULUS package together? It's quite easy to see that BHO and his congressional masters are just trying to shove through a bill to pay everyone off under the guise of "emergency" when very little of this is actually stimulative.

Hey, nice eye rolls. Glad to see you're keeping with the CAD playbook. You will get exactly one response on this, and it is already one more than you deserve. I'm not interested in doing the normal CAD dance with you today, as you're getting pretty tiresome lately.

Yes, what I'm saying is that if the stimulus is important, as both parties say that it is, that to hold it up over 2.7% of its provisions is silly. Of course it's not easy to cut out because what some people consider pork, other people don't. Why would people be any more likely to freely cut out authorizations they consider to be important than those who are against them would freely keep them in?

Your opinion of what is stimulus just happens to be different than what other people consider stimulus. To be honest I would be downright flabbergasted if you could give a coherent definition of 'stimulus' that wouldn't end up applying to the vast majority of spending in this bill. (try it sometime!) That is why you say it is spending, and they say it is stimulus. There is room for compromise on this as has already been done repeatedly in the last week or so, but since the Democrats have won crushing victories in the last two Congressional elections and a significant victory in the last Presidential election, when push comes to shove it will be their definition that counts. Sorry if you don't like that.

Uhhh and again you FAIL to understand it's not ONLY about the 3% of low hanging pork. Even some Dems(rational ones) don't like this bill and want to cut things out that aren't "shovel ready" - which one can safely bet most don't qualify as.
"compromise" - lol yeah a whole lot of compromise saying "I won". No where did I or others suggest that the R's should have been able to write it -but totally shutting them out isn't "compromise". Tossing a bit of pork/red meat to the R's isn't "compromise" either - it's trying to buy support. Compromise would be sitting down and discussing and agreeing to what should and shouldn't be included - not only piling things on top to make it look "yummy".

BTW - I'll call it what I wish and it is up to the D's/BHO to show/prove how all this spending is actually "stimulus" because most of what I've been reading and hearing is that much will not even happening for atleast a year or more. Stimulus is NOW. Spending to supposedly create long-term growth is not "stimulus".