The Stimulus Bill in the Senate -

[Tigermike 4,329]

President Obama and the dims will need some help from Republicans to get the stimulus bill passed in the senate. Who do you think will cross over and vote to pass this bill? All they will need is two Republicans voting yes and it will (or should) pass. That is assuming all democrats vote in favor. In the house version all dems didn't vote for the bill (11 dems, I think it was,) voted NO.

I'm thinking the most likely Republicans to vote for the bill could be two of these. What do you think? Any others likely to vote for the bill as it is now written?

John McCain (R-AZ) (Too much pork & earmarks for McCain to vote yes?)

Susan Collins (R-Maine)

Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)

Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)

Will the Senate democrats ALL vote to pass the current bill?

[OldNewby 27]

I'm betting on the snow queen twins.

YES.

[Auburn85 438]

agree.

at least 1 or both senators from maine will vote yea on this

I know Collins voted for auto bailout. can't remember if snowe did or not. more than likely she did.

hopefully, we won't see someone coming out of right field on this like with the auto bailout. sam brownback voted yea on the measure.

mike, you are right with the 11 figure on house dems who voted against the stimulus bill.

all the dems in alabama voted no except artur davis.

cooper of tenn. voted no

[autigeremt 7,553]

I think McCain votes no the first time, and after some culling, votes yes. Grahm may or may not.....his voter block is against it 74% to 18% (I'm from S.C.).

The House GOP are my heroes today, but there's more to this fight than one vote. They did the right thing today.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The same heros who helped get us into this mess?

[AFTiger 282]

The same heros who helped get us into this mess?

Barney and Chris?

[Tigermike 4,329]

The same heros who helped get us into this mess?

Yeah that was a one way street wasn't it? Obama can't vote present now can he? He is the one pushing. He is the one out front. His name is on all this. If it works fine for him if it only drags the country deeper in debt and no long term results then it's his name that will be remembered. But there is one t One thing absolutely positive now the only reason he went to congress and lobbied the Republicans is he is looking for cover. When it all goes to crap he is wanting to have the Republicans to point fingers at and say they were there, they were in all this, it's mostly all their fault. Then, when this all comes crashing down, we'll hear the Democrats reminding everyone that it was the Republicans who provided the "critical backing necessary" to put the vote over the top. If the Republicans are smart they will vote what is right long term and not let themselves be sandbagged by the dims.

[RunInRed 19,677]

The Senate is a lot more bipartisan than the House. In fact, the bill in the Senate has already moved toward Republican positions on key issues, making GOP votes more likely. Further, this bill is still likely to change a good bit. The edits getting the most chatter are more tax relief aimed at housing and small business capital gains exclusions.

Even still, with majorities in both houses, Obama has the votes to get this passed. That point is worth soaking in and makes his outreach to the GOP admirable. And I think most do realize a do nothing approach is unacceptable. So you have the predictable philosophical divisions over taxes and spending. Actually, I have some problems myself with the bill. The biggest flaw I see is that Obama is trying to fulfill long-term objectives in this package. Education, Global Warming, Clean Energy, Healthcare and the list goes on and on. While these are all noble, I think these items should be separate legislation debated on their own merits. I'd like to see an initial bill about half the current size. I'd divy it up as follows.

$250B - Tax cuts / Unemployment benefits / tax credits for companies who hire new employees

$150B - Infrastructure / Transit

$50B - Defense / Homeland Security (w/ focus on VA, securing our ports, etc.)

After this has passed and begins to absorb, then Congress can follow-up with legislation to address Education, Energy, Healthcare -- I want these problems solved and realize we need to make long-term investments here, but don't just dump it all in here under the guise of jump-starting the economy.

The obvious fear is, what if a smaller package is not enough? And my answer is, you can always go back and do more. Instead, they are taking the kitchen sink approach, which I don't like but will hope it works, for the good of the country.

Lastly, isn't Iraq sitting on a $79B surplus? When is President Obama gonna ask them to pay us back? That's a campaign promised I want fulfilled.

[TigerHeat 9]

The Senate is a lot more bipartisan than the House. In fact, the bill in the Senate has already moved toward Republican positions on key issues, making GOP votes more likely. Further, this bill is still likely to change a good bit. The edits getting the most chatter are more tax relief aimed at housing and small business capital gains exclusions.

Even still, with majorities in both houses, Obama has the votes to get this passed. That point is worth soaking in and makes his outreach to the GOP admirable. And I think most do realize a do nothing approach is unacceptable. So you have the predictable philosophical divisions over taxes and spending. Actually, I have some problems myself with the bill. The biggest flaw I see is that Obama is trying to fulfill long-term objectives in this package. Education, Global Warming, Clean Energy, Healthcare and the list goes on and on. While these are all noble, I think these items should be separate legislation debated on their own merits. I'd like to see an initial bill about half the current size. I'd divy it up as follows.

$250B - Tax cuts / Unemployment benefits / tax credits for companies who hire new employees

$150B - Infrastructure / Transit

$50B - Defense / Homeland Security (w/ focus on VA, securing our ports, etc.)

After this has passed and begins to absorb, then Congress can follow-up with legislation to address Education, Energy, Healthcare -- I want these problems solved and realize we need to make long-term investments here, but don't just dump it all in here under the guise of jump-starting the economy.

The obvious fear is, what if a smaller package is not enough? And my answer is, you can always go back and do more. Instead, they are taking the kitchen sink approach, which I don't like but will hope it works, for the good of the country.Don't worry, it'll work for exactly what they intend it....it'll enslave even more people to the government without any short-term benefit beyond makework short-term jobs to lower class workers.

Lastly, isn't Iraq sitting on a $79B surplus? When is President Obama gonna ask them to pay us back? That's a campaign promised I want fulfilled. When Bush was in office you dhimmis wanted "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" but now? "We want your oil". Hypocrites.

[RunInRed 19,677]

Lastly, isn't Iraq sitting on a $79B surplus? When is President Obama gonna ask them to pay us back? That's a campaign promised I want fulfilled. When Bush was in office you dhimmis wanted "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" but now? "We want your oil". Hypocrites.

We're spending $12B/month to rebuild their country, yet we're swimming in debt here at home. If they are sitting on a $79B surplus, why is it unrealistic for them to chip in?

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Again I ask:

red, is it really your contention that this stimulus bill is not filled with scores of pork...projects that various lobbying concerns have inserted into it that have nothing to do with economic stimulus? Because I'm trying to be optimistic, but when I see some of the crap being put into this thing under the guise of "stimulus", I get very discouraged. I wasn't all that hopeful with Obama on the rights of the unborn but I held out some hope on economic stuff.

Is he going to man up and tell his fellow Dems to cut the crap and send a real stimulus bill to his desk or just let it go?

[RunInRed 19,677]

Again I ask:

red, is it really your contention that this stimulus bill is not filled with scores of pork...projects that various lobbying concerns have inserted into it that have nothing to do with economic stimulus? Because I'm trying to be optimistic, but when I see some of the crap being put into this thing under the guise of "stimulus", I get very discouraged. I wasn't all that hopeful with Obama on the rights of the unborn but I held out some hope on economic stuff.

Is he going to man up and tell his fellow Dems to cut the crap and send a real stimulus bill to his desk or just let it go?

Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer. And what I mean by that is, what some consider pork, others consider projects/initiatives that will stimulate the economy. For example, if a congressman lobbies for a bridge in his district, is that a pork project? After all, you have to have workers to complete such work and materials have to be purchased.

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. But even still, I don’t pretend to know all the answers. Maybe this approach works, I sure hope so. Remember, it was in the early 90s when a lot of conservatives were screaming about a new President’s economic approach as well. They said things like tax increases on the wealthy would sink the economy and that the spending was out of control. The results of course were 20MM+ new jobs, budget surpluses, and more peace and prosperity than we’ve seen in a long long time. And guess what, a lot of the economic guys of that era are now engaged in this administration and are responsible for drafting this package.

I just want to know one thing, if this works…if our economy is vastly improved in two years, what will the opposition say? Again, I’m rooting for this to work, not because I have some vested interest in Obama but because I want what’s best for America.

[Tigermike 4,329]

Again I ask:

red, is it really your contention that this stimulus bill is not filled with scores of pork...projects that various lobbying concerns have inserted into it that have nothing to do with economic stimulus? Because I'm trying to be optimistic, but when I see some of the crap being put into this thing under the guise of "stimulus", I get very discouraged. I wasn't all that hopeful with Obama on the rights of the unborn but I held out some hope on economic stuff.

Is he going to man up and tell his fellow Dems to cut the crap and send a real stimulus bill to his desk or just let it go?

Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer. And what I mean by that is, what some consider pork, others consider projects/initiatives that will stimulate the economy. For example, if a congressman lobbies for a bridge in his district, is that a pork project? After all, you have to have workers to complete such work and materials have to be purchased.

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. (Your Messiah is already planning big cuts in defense.) But even still, I don’t pretend to know all the answers. Maybe this approach works, I sure hope so. Remember, it was in the early 90s when a lot of conservatives were screaming about a new President’s economic approach as well. They said things like tax increases on the wealthy would sink the economy and that the spending was out of control. The results of course were 20MM+ new jobs, budget surpluses, and more peace and prosperity than we’ve seen in a long long time. And guess what, a lot of the economic guys of that era are now engaged in this administration and are responsible for drafting this package.

I just want to know one thing, if this works…if our economy is vastly improved in two years, what will the opposition say? Again, I’m rooting for this to work, not because I have some vested interest in Obama but because I want what’s best for America. (If it doesn't work what will you say? IF if doesn't what will the dims say? Blame Bush. )

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Again I ask:

red, is it really your contention that this stimulus bill is not filled with scores of pork...projects that various lobbying concerns have inserted into it that have nothing to do with economic stimulus? Because I'm trying to be optimistic, but when I see some of the crap being put into this thing under the guise of "stimulus", I get very discouraged. I wasn't all that hopeful with Obama on the rights of the unborn but I held out some hope on economic stuff.

Is he going to man up and tell his fellow Dems to cut the crap and send a real stimulus bill to his desk or just let it go?

Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer. And what I mean by that is, what some consider pork, others consider projects/initiatives that will stimulate the economy. For example, if a congressman lobbies for a bridge in his district, is that a pork project? After all, you have to have workers to complete such work and materials have to be purchased.

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. But even still, I don’t pretend to know all the answers. Maybe this approach works, I sure hope so. Remember, it was in the early 90s when a lot of conservatives were screaming about a new President’s economic approach as well. They said things like tax increases on the wealthy would sink the economy and that the spending was out of control. The results of course were 20MM+ new jobs, budget surpluses, and more peace and prosperity than we’ve seen in a long long time. And guess what, a lot of the economic guys of that era are now engaged in this administration and are responsible for drafting this package.

I just want to know one thing, if this works…if our economy is vastly improved in two years, what will the opposition say? Again, I’m rooting for this to work, not because I have some vested interest in Obama but because I want what’s best for America.

I'm not counting infrastructure stuff. But for instance, two of the things that were cut after much debate (and after Pelosi actually tried to defend them as "stimulus") were contraceptives and sodding the mall in DC. There are numerous things in there that are like this that have nothing to do with infrastructure improvements (which I agree we need) nor will they employ a bunch of people in the process. They are just stupid little pet projects people want. I really don't think it's that difficult to cut such things. The question is, who has the stones to do it?

[RunInRed 19,677]

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. (Your Messiah is already planning big cuts in defense.)

Do you realize that the current stimulus bill includes about $10B for Defense and Veterans Affairs?

-$350MM for Department of Defense Research

-$3.75B for new Defense Medical Facilities

-$2.1B for Military Facilities Renovations

-$1.2B for Troop Housing

-$360MM for Child Development Centes on military bases

-$400MM for Guard and Reserve Training and Operations Centers and Utilities Infrastructure

-$950MM for Veterans Medical Facilities

-$50MM for Veterans Cemeteries

-$1.15B for Border Ports of Entry

[RunInRed 19,677]

Titan - It was Obama who cut the contraceptive nonsense -- even after Pelosi went on the Sunday morning talk show circuit and bloviated about it's merits, correct?

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Yes. He knew it was indefensible. But the issue is, there's a lot more where that came from. If he stops there and doesn't push to get a LOT more nonsense cut, it was merely a symbolic gesture designed to get some headlines. Will he hold their feet to the fire on this other crap?

[Tigermike 4,329]

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. (Your Messiah is already planning big cuts in defense.)

Do you realize that the current stimulus bill includes about $10B for Defense and Veterans Affairs?

-$350MM for Department of Defense Research

-$3.75B for new Defense Medical Facilities

-$2.1B for Military Facilities Renovations

-$1.2B for Troop Housing

-$360MM for Child Development Centes on military bases

-$400MM for Guard and Reserve Training and Operations Centers and Utilities Infrastructure

-$950MM for Veterans Medical Facilities

-$50MM for Veterans Cemeteries

-$1.15B for Border Ports of Entry

Do you realize that

Defense Cuts Coming, Gates Testifies

January 28, 2009

The Virginian-Pilot

WASHINGTON -- Defense spending, particularly for expensive new weapons such as the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 fighter, is going down and the Obama administration is preparing to make hard choices to end programs that exceed their budgets, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

"The spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

The demands of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the nation's economic crisis, require military planners to separate "those things that are desirable from those things that are truly needed" in the way of new weapons, Gates added.

He suggested that the new administration will avoid across-the-board spending reductions, "which inefficiently extend all programs," and will try to save money by eliminating unneeded programs.

The secretary did not signal which programs he has in mind, but said the cuts will begin in the administration's 2010 defense budget proposal. That plan is expected to be released this spring.

Some of the Pentagon's most costly new weapons are being developed by the Navy, including the new Ford class of aircraft carriers -- being built at Northrop Grumman's Newport News shipyard -- and the DDG-1000 destroyer.

The initial Ford carrier is projected to cost nearly $14 billion, more than double the cost of ships in the former Nimitz class. Navy officials say costs will drop to around $8 billion per hull with subsequent ships.

The carrier program has subcontractors in more than 40 states, creating a built-in constituency in Congress. But the high cost of the ships, and continuing questions among some lawmakers about whether the Navy needs the 11-carrier fleet now set by federal law, could make the carrier program an attractive target for the new administration's cost-cutting.

The Navy announced plans last summer to stop production of the DDG-1000 destroyers, which cost more than $3 billion each, after just two ships; officials agreed to a third ship after protests from lawmakers in New England states where the ships are being designed and built.

Another Navy program, the Littoral Combat Ship, has been wracked by cost overruns, with the cost per hull rising from around $250 million to more than $500 million. Even with those increases, the new ship would be the service's most economical surface vessel.

http://www.military.com/news/article/defen...html?ESRC=eb.nl

What is it about Defense Cuts Coming, Gates Testifies that you don't understand?

[RunInRed 19,677]

Tough times call for tough decisioins. A lot of companies and government entities are having to make similiar and unpopular budget choices. Look, we're in a recession, we can't keep spending like drunken sailors. I would think you of all people would understand this. You can't have it both ways TM....you can't b*tch about deficit spending in one post and then gripe about cuts in another.

[RunInRed 19,677]

Yes. He knew it was indefensible. But the issue is, there's a lot more where that came from. If he stops there and doesn't push to get a LOT more nonsense cut, it was merely a symbolic gesture designed to get some headlines. Will he hold their feet to the fire on this other crap?

I think we can agree that there is a lot of crap in the current bill.

[TitanTiger 22,262]

Yes. He knew it was indefensible. But the issue is, there's a lot more where that came from. If he stops there and doesn't push to get a LOT more nonsense cut, it was merely a symbolic gesture designed to get some headlines. Will he hold their feet to the fire on this other crap?

I think we can agree that there is a lot of crap in the current bill.

Yes we can. My only hope is that Obama will really stand up to his own party's spending sprees, unlike GWB who never said no to the Republicans in Congress (or the Dems) on matters of spending.

[Tigermike 4,329]

Tough times call for tough decisioins. A lot of companies and government entities are having to make similiar and unpopular budget choices. Look, we're in a recession, we can't keep spending like drunken sailors. I would think you of all people would understand this. You can't have it both ways TM....you can't b*tch about deficit spending in one post and then gripe about cuts in another.

This is absolutely pathetic. This is a SPENDING BILL. Obama and the dims are pushing through one of the largest, if not the largest, spending bill of all time. And you make a statement like that. Excuse me while I wipe off the monitor. We (conservatives on this board) have been talking for the past four years about cutting spending. You always blamed things on other things. IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT SPENDING WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS BILL?

[RunInRed 19,677]

Have you read anything I typed? I've stated in every post above that I don't like the bill in it's current state.

Also, are you griping about spending cuts on Defense or not? Make up your mind.

[TigerHeat 9]

Have you read anything I typed? I've stated in every post above that I don't like the bill in it's current state.

Also, are you griping about spending cuts on Defense or not? Make up your mind.

Did anyone really doubt that Obama and Co. were going to rape and pillage our defense and intelligence capabilites while spending on such pressing issues as STD prevention ($335 MILLION???) ?

We'll have no eyes or ears, no satellite intel, no spare parts for aging airframes, no fuel for training, an army of envirokids marching everywhere to control and limit military training, and a marked increase in non-combat deployments. We'll also dismantle systems through overuse (cruise missiles) or planned obsolescence (Chinook helicopters).

But by golly we'll get the those damned rich people to pay their fair share, we'll make sure that ammunition costs so much that we eviscerate the 2nd amendment, ensure that federal employees work in mini-Taj Mahals, every shop not owned by Pelosi is unionized at gunpoint, Ahmedinehjad knows how kind-hearted the US is now, our shaky ally Pakistan falls to the radicals, our friends are alienated, our enemies mollycoddled.

It's gonna be a fun four years.

[RunInRed 19,677]

Did anyone really doubt that Obama and Co. were going to rape and pillage our defense and intelligence capabilites while spending on such pressing issues as STD prevention ($335 MILLION???) ?

It seems we are having a reading comprehension problem on this thread. There is $10 Billion+ in Defense and VA spending associated with this bill. I point this out not to defend some of the ridiculous line items in the package (which I have repeatedly now criticized) but to try to understand where you guys are coming from. At this point, it just sounds like stale political dogma.