House Passes $819 Billion Economic Stimulus
All the Republican posturing couldn’t keep the stimulus bill from passing. While I agree that moving in haste is often unwise, losing jobs at the rate of 500,000 per month is not sustainable…..something had to be done. Let’s hope this is the right plan and it is successful in resuscitating the economy.
By Paul Kane and Michael Shear
Wednesday, January 28, 2009; 6:23 PM
With no Republican support, the House approved an $819 billion stimulus plan that will serve as the cornerstone of President Obama’s efforts to resuscitate the economy, an early victory for the new president but still a disappointment because of the lack of Republican votes.
The measure passed 244 to 188, with 11 Democrats and 177 Republicans voting against it.
The two-year economic package includes $275 billion in tax cuts and more than $550 billion in domestic spending on roads and bridges, alternative-energy development, health-care technology, unemployment assistance, and aid to states and local governments. It would also provide up to $500 per year in tax relief for most workers and more than $300 billion in aid to states for funding to help rebuild schools, provide health-care to the poor and reconstruct highways and bridges.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Passed 244-188. Not a single republican voted for it.
Republicrat Reply:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“Not a single republican voted for it.”
Is that a good thing or bad thing? Now I am sure that I will get blasted for my next statement, but here it goes.
I am glad they did not vote for it. To use political slang, it was a Crap Sandwich served on a paper plate! I will be the first to admit that something must be done. But I am not convinced this is the solution. Not saying that I have one either. But out of 188 Republicans, there has gotta be a couple of them that are reasonable intelligent and for none of them to vote for has to say something.
This is why there needs to be three parties. Neither party should have total control over the House or Senate…. But that’s conversation for another post..
Bantryb Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I agree with you, Republicrat, on two fronts. We have to look at a much bigger picture than just what is going to happen in the next six months. Businesses are going to close, people are going to lose jobs, foreclosures will continue. That is the fall-out from very bad decisions in the past. That doesn’t mean that we need to make the same kinds of mistakes again.
We have seen that the effects of the first bail-out package have been negligible. Why would we imagine that throwing good money after bad will solve the problem? Cynics may call it a power play by the Republicans to oppose this bill. I call it the voice of reason over compassion.It may seem cruel in the short run, but what it does is give a chance for our children and grandchildren to have the kind of life we have had, unburdened or less burdened by huge national debt.
As to the three (or more) party idea – we’re way overdue.
Sage Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Again, I find the hypocrisy amazing. The Republicans for the most part voted yes on Bush’s bailout money. Why is it that the Republicans only want to spend money when it’s being given to big business?
Are you suggesting that everyone who voted for the bill is less than intelligent? I don’t know that this bill is the right solution but I don’t know that it isn’t either.
.
Republicrat Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“Are you suggesting that everyone who voted for the bill is less than intelligent?”
Absolutely not. I was simply suggesting that out of 188 Republicans, they ALL cannot be idiots and not all are out for big business. Some of them have to be intelligent enough to know a good and solid bill when they see one. Yet none voted for it.
Bantryb Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
And it’s hypocrisy, why? Yes, the Republicans voted for the Bush bailout. It was a rush to action and it didn’t work as planned. Maybe, just maybe the Republicans are smart enough to figure out that a rush to action doesn’t work and that we need to sit down and think this thing through. I call that reasonable, not hypocrisy.
I agree with Republicrat. They CAN’T all be idiots and not all ARE out for big business. To imply so is to assume that all we Republicans are idiots as well. After all, we put them in office.
Sage Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Not all the people who voted for it are idiots either.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I am not getting what the republicans think will work. What I have seen is more of the same. Perhaps some credit should remain tight given the abuse of it in the past. How much capital do the banks need to build?
Remember after 9/11 we were told to go out and spend? Where did that get us? Personally I am not willing to go into debt to line the bankers pocket.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Where the hell will the money come from? Will there ever be a point when our nations creditors turn us down?
January 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
No jobs creation programs except through feeding of states which now don’t create job but give it to private enterprises (through the lowest bidder contracts) who will probably pocket most of it and hire illegal humans to work for pennies a day?
Tax breaks for working people $500. for a single person and up to a $1,000 for a family … What about retired Senior Citizens? Nothing to benefit them?
Pat Buchanan wondered yesterday if Obama was talking more like Ronald Reagan and sounding less like Obama.
I agree. This is not the right bill for the country. Would Madame Secretary have had it better if she had been the president instead?
I don’t know.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Like I mentioned before, the Republicans are irrelevant, and the bill was passed even though they all voted against it. If this bill works, then the Republicans will be out of business for years to come. If the bill doesn’t work, then the Democrats will have some difficulty trying to explain all of the pork spending in the bill. Either way, we are facing hyper inflation because money will be printed to cover this, and the more money printed, the less it will be worth. Gold and other precious metals may be a good strategic move because they will always have some value in the world market.
Republicrat Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“Like I mentioned before, the Republicans are irrelevant…”
With all due respect, this is the type of rhetoric that the hard core left and hardcore right have been slinging for years. NOBODY is irrelevant nor should they be treated as such….
Mbousa Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
All right, then the Republicans are the “vocal minority” that can make a lot of noise and release sound bites that are picked up by Fox news and then commented on by conservative pundants which won’t sway any substantial democratic votes. The dem’s majorities from the last election in thier minds has given them a clear mandate to do what they please. Obama wants to share the blame, but in this case, at least in the House, it didn’t work. The consequences of what is passed will be either right or wrong and only time will tell.
Wizcon Reply:
January 29th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The republicans spent their time objecting to certain parts of the stimulus, like the birth control thing. I think this was put in for the purpose of concession. It was expendable to the author’s of the bill. A lot was made of the two side “talking about it”. Business as usual. After all women got the Ledbetter Bill signed today.
February 1st, 2009 at 7:09 am
1. When Kennedy came into office in 1961, the top marginal rate of individual income tax was 91%, compared with 39.6% today. The top corporate rate was 52%; today it is 35%, with much ampler depreciation allowances.
2. When Kennedy came into office, the unemployment rate was 6.7%. The Kennedy economists thought “full-employment” was 4%. That is, they thought they were well below full employment. They thought that the economy was operating at about 9% below its potential total output, meaning the output the economy was capable of at full employment, with the existing tax rates and other structural conditions. They thought that the economy was operating below its potential because total demand was too low. Today we seem to be close to full employment and close to today’s potential output, if not there.
3. In fiscal 1961, when Kennedy came into office, the federal deficit was about 0.6% of gross national product. But the administration believed that the budget would be in surplus, given the existing tax rates and expenditure programs, if the economy were at full employment. It believed that even with lower taxes or higher expenditures the budget would be in balance if the economy were at high employment.
4. The administration believed that there was a long-term problem of fiscal drag. It thought that in the long run the potential growth of total output was 4% a year, without counting on increased growth from tax reduction or other structural reforms. But this potential growth rate would not be achieved with existing tax and expenditure policies, because they would yield excessive surpluses, which would depress demand. So the long-run growth problem was to get rid of these troublesome budget surpluses.
5. With some exceptions, the administration did not care much about balancing the budget, except as a useful political slogan. Walter Heller, Kennedy’s chief economist, referred to balancing the budget as “the Puritan ethic,” at a time when that epithet was considered dismissive.
6. Cutting taxes was not Kennedy’s first choice for getting rid of those troublesome surpluses. He had plans for many expenditure increases – for defense, education, urban renewal, regional economic development, worker training and medical care for the aged. Congress did not approve any of that, except for an increase in defense spending after the Soviets put up the Berlin Wall.
7. The Kennedy administration would have liked to “get the economy moving again” by easing monetary policy. But the administration did not control monetary policy, which in any case was inhibited by the balance-of-payments deficit combined with the commitment to support the dollar exchange rate.
8. In the summer of 1962, the stock market fell sharply. That was commonly attributed to anxieties in the financial and business communities caused by the administration’s heavy-handed pressure on the steel companies to roll back a price increase. The administration feared that the economy was entering another recession, which would be its recession. It felt the need to stimulate the economy but was blocked by Congress on the expenditure-increasing front. Moreover, if felt the need to restore confidence in the business community. So it came to the proposal of a big tax cut.
9. The administration did not propose to couple the tax cut with a spending cut. It wanted to stimulate demand and reduce the troublesome full-employment surplus. It was the congressional leadership, notably Sen. Harry Byrd of Virginia and Rep. Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, who insisted on expenditure restraint along with the tax cut. This led to President Johnson’s classic fiscal policy pronouncement to Walter Heller: “If you don’t get this budget down around $100 billion, you won’t pee one drop.”
10. The administration recognized that tax reduction would have some beneficial incentive effects, which we would now call supply-side effects, but it insisted that the main objective was the surplus-reducing, demand-side effect.
So we got the tax cut, signed in February 1964. And we got prolonged economic expansion. But the connection between these facts is unclear. By current measurements, the expansion began in February 1961 and continued until December 1969.