The GOP is wasting no time before resorting to gridlock

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mAdMaLuDaWg

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2003
2,437
1
0
Here is a summary, albeit a partisan one

The $850 billion Phony Stimulus Plan slated for a House vote later this week will exceed more than $1.1 trillion when adding in the interest ($300 plus billion) between 2009-2019 to pay for it.

The Capitol Hill Democrats' plan includes funding for contraceptives, regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funded contraception, there is no question that it has NOTHING to do with the economy. (Since Monday this idiocy has been removed -- due to bi-partisan outcry!)

The Phony Stimulus Plan could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown. (NOTE: we have discovered that ACORN will recieve over 4 billion dollars!)

Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

$650 million for digital TV coupons;

$600 million for new cars for the federal government;

$6 billion for colleges/universities;

$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts;

$44 million to repair the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters;

$200 million for the National Mall, including $21 million for sod!

The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan's spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

The plan provides spending in at least 150 different federal programs, ranging from Amtrak to the Transportation Security Administration. Is this the "targeted" plan Democratic leaders promised?

Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

Just one in seven dollars of an $18.5 billion expenditure on "energy efficiency" and "renewable energy programs" would be spent within the next 18 months.

The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

House Democrats' plan will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

The plan provides enough spending ? $825 billion ? to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

$825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

Although the House Democrats' proposal has been pitched as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the plan ? or three percent ? is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the plan provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) ? a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds ? funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

All board members of the "Accountability and Transparency Board" created by this legislation are appointees of the President; none will be appointed by Congress.

A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes.

The "Making Work Pay" tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

Almost one-third of the so-called "tax relief" in the House Democrats' plan is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package ? not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

$825 billion is just the beginning ? many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan. In fact, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), told Roll Call earlier this month, "I would not be surprised to see us go further on some of these programs down the line."

 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg
Here is a summary, albeit a partisan one.
The summary is clearly not entirely accurate, because among other things it includes items such as the national mall component which were cut out of the final bill that passed the House. The Senate proposed version is significantly different than the version that the summary focuses on and never included the national mall funding in the first place.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
How long do you think Republicans will filibuster an economic recovery bill in this economy before one or two of them flinch? Obama has the bully pulpit, he should be on TV every day making a point that time is running while Republicans are stalling.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: her209
Is John McCain going to reach across the aisle?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a word no, McCain is already on the pity pot agreeing that the GOP was not properly consulted. And GWB was a uniter not a divider.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
According to the Wall Street Journal only about 12% of the spending is on things that will actually stimulate the economy.

This bill is just hands out given away by the Democrats to their loyal supporters.

Also, the Democrats did not even TRY to get Republicans involved in the bill, so you can blame grid lock on them as well, if not more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will indeed see the non Prof John hypothesis tested as the economic stimulus already passed by the house is debated in the Senate.

Will the GOP be amenable to compromise or will they be nothing but selfish crybabies
who demand 100% of their way or the highway.


The American people will be the judge and the verdict may be rendered 11/2010.

Just a reminder that the GOP has lost some 14 Senate seats in the last two election cycles. And the American economy will get far worse in the very near future.
God you are an idiot.

It is the Democrats who are demanding it be 100% their way. There is not one word in this bill written by a Republican. It is the Democrat stimulus bill and if it fails it will be the Democrats fault for not even TRYING to work with the Republicans.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
The choice is for the Republicans to make: Let this bill go to a vote, or filibuster it and get nuked. The count down to nuclear option should start as soon as the first cloture vote fails.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Lets see if I can quite get my arms around the non Prof John logic of "It is the Democrats who are demanding it be 100% their way. There is not one word in this bill written by a Republican. It is the Democrat stimulus bill and if it fails it will be the Democrats fault for not even TRYING to work with the Republicans."

Lets see, even though its somewhat a dubious contention that the democrats refuse to listen to or work with the GOP, it then becomes the inalienable right of the GOP to put their hurt feeling snit above the national interests at a time of a national emergency largely caused by past GOP mis governance.

Tell us another bit of illogical bullcrap non Prof John.

As you may recall, this will be debated in the Senate this week, more unbiased observers than you and I will decide on the issue.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Nuclear Option, NOW!
There is no nuclear option.

The nuclear option only works on judges because the constitution says:
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
Some people believe that this part means that the Senate must vote to approve or disapprove a judge. The problem is that the minority uses the closure rule to prevent the Senate from providing their consent.

When it comes to a bill like this though the Senate has to follow its own rules, or change the rules.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
$819 billions to create 4 millions jobs? Wow, that should be around $200K per person, I need to get in line, JK ;). Seriously, how much of this is going to stimulate the economy by putting people to work and how much of this is going to support pet projects?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Why not send every tax payer a debt card for say $1000.

That would force people to go out and spend money on something. I am sure some people would spend it on essentials and then save their own money, but a lot of people might go on a shopping spree and that is what the economy needs.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
They have a duty to provide a loyal opposition. It's a high stakes game because if Obama succeeds they will be in trouble for a long time... If Obama fails Republicans will take over again. For years now Republicans gave out pork to their interests so I'm not buying this sudden frugalness at all (read: dimes worth of difference) - it's more like they don't think we can stave off a depression so why not look like they had no hand in it.

I can't believe many of you blame Republicans for our economic woes and fail to consider lending practices pushed by congressional Democrats and Clinton earlier making lenders make sub-prime mortgages and their subsequent defaults because bankers were encouraged to take no account of standard credit considerations like employment, income, and net worth. There is plenty of blame to go around is all I'm saying.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Thank God for a filibuster proof Senate. You can't spend your way into prosperity.
You mean you can't borrow your way into prosperity. Although you can try and borrow your way into perpetual majority, the Dems did it in 60s and it worked for nearly 40 years.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Nuclear Option, NOW!
There is no nuclear option.

The nuclear option only works on judges because the constitution says:
and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
Some people believe that this part means that the Senate must vote to approve or disapprove a judge. The problem is that the minority uses the closure rule to prevent the Senate from providing their consent.

When it comes to a bill like this though the Senate has to follow its own rules, or change the rules.

That's what the Nuclear Option is. Changing of the rules. Filibuster is not in the Constitution, it's a rule that can be changed if the Senate so pleases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

If Republicans proceed with this course, not only could they have their filibuster of this bill nuked, but they will lose the ability to filibuster, period. Then they might as well go home, since they will have no power at all left.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
Originally posted by: Zebo
They have a duty to provide a loyal opposition. It's a high stakes game because if Obama succeeds they will be in trouble for a long time... If Obama fails Republicans will take over again. For years now Republicans gave out pork to their interests so I'm not buying this sudden frugalness at all (read: dimes worth of difference) - it's more like they don't think we can stave off a depression so why not look like they had no hand in it.

I can't believe many of you blame Republicans for our economic woes and fail to consider lending practices pushed by congressional Democrats and Clinton earlier making lenders make sub-prime mortgages and their subsequent defaults because bankers were encouraged to take no account of standard credit considerations like employment, income, and net worth. There is plenty of blame to go around is all I'm saying.

Both parties are the same, as far as I'm concern, they may say different things. They are more worried about getting elected than the welfare of the whole country. Wasteful spending, the Republicans were amazingly good at it, when they were in power. Government spending by the opposition party is always wasteful. As long as the American people are willing to give the government a blank check, the politicians will milk us dry. There will never by enough money.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
I can't believe many of you blame Republicans for our economic woes and fail to consider lending practices pushed by congressional Democrats and Clinton earlier making lenders make sub-prime mortgages and their subsequent defaults because bankers were encouraged to take no account of standard credit considerations like employment, income, and net worth. There is plenty of blame to go around is all I'm saying.
If true, why didn't the housing bubble burst 3-5 years after Clinton left?
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
Maybe if they removed the word "Economic" off this so-called stimulus bill it would pass. Seriously, I dont care what party side you claim, this bill is one huge piece of non-economic stimulating garbage. It's like they just took everything that would have been hidden as earmarks in future bills and smashed into one pile of crap they call an economic stimulus.

 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Maybe if they removed the word "Economic" off this so-called stimulus bill it would pass. Seriously, I dont care what party side you claim, this bill is one huge piece of non-economic stimulating garbage. It's like they just took everything that would have been hidden as earmarks in future bills and smashed into one pile of crap they call an economic stimulus.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1/show
 

AFMatt

Senior member
Aug 14, 2008
248
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Zebo
I can't believe many of you blame Republicans for our economic woes and fail to consider lending practices pushed by congressional Democrats and Clinton earlier making lenders make sub-prime mortgages and their subsequent defaults because bankers were encouraged to take no account of standard credit considerations like employment, income, and net worth. There is plenty of blame to go around is all I'm saying.
If true, why didn't the housing bubble burst 3-5 years after Clinton left?

The burst started in 2005. The sub-prime disaster started in 2006, because so many people were sold on ARMs, and went a few years with payments they could barely afford only to be hit with the much higher payments after that. Meanwhile, their home value dropped like a rock and they were stuck with a very high payment on a house they bought for way more than they could sell it for today..

 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
Originally posted by: AFMatt
Maybe if they removed the word "Economic" off this so-called stimulus bill it would pass. Seriously, I dont care what party side you claim, this bill is one huge piece of non-economic stimulating garbage. It's like they just took everything that would have been hidden as earmarks in future bills and smashed into one pile of crap they call an economic stimulus.

They're thinking we're fools, we elected them after all. They should tell us what it really is, a spending bill, but a spending bill doesn't sound very stimulating, so stimulus package it is.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Government spending IS stimulus. If private sector is not spending, the government needs to pick up the slack. It's better to pay people to build infrastructure, etc, than to pay them unemployment to do nothing.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
At least maybe this means no more big spending bills for the next few years. :p

I mean really, what else is there to do? Seems like the stimulus bill pretty much covers all the big projects Dems have been wanting. No UHC, but I really doubt that's something they'll try to push, at least not during Obama's current term.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,732
10,039
136
Originally posted by: Mani
And you'd think after running this country into the ground over the last 8 years, the republicans would learn that their one-issue approach to the economy sucks. The sad thing is, all of this is political posturing so that they can try to look like the saviors against spending when in fact they look like an obstructionist bunch of whining babies.

Is that what you called yourself these past eight years?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Zebo
I can't believe many of you blame Republicans for our economic woes and fail to consider lending practices pushed by congressional Democrats and Clinton earlier making lenders make sub-prime mortgages and their subsequent defaults because bankers were encouraged to take no account of standard credit considerations like employment, income, and net worth. There is plenty of blame to go around is all I'm saying.
If true, why didn't the housing bubble burst 3-5 years after Clinton left?

There were regulative and legislative changes by Democrats that made it worse each year. You can read about those here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

I am not blaming the bubble on CRA entirely though. Like most things causes were more complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis This is a great article which highlights the housing bubble - plenty of blame to toss around.

It's easy to blame Bush because he's an idiot and wasted a couple trillion in Iraq, with Democrat help BTW who authorized every bill and the war itself, but he has nothing to do with our respective bubbles (housing, stock, commodities)