Obama - The beginning

[classicman]

What about the amendments they didn't feel were in the best interests of the country? How do those get removed or discussed?

[morethanpretty]

Compromise.

The democratics did, the repubs didn't.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Compromise.

The democratics did, the repubs didn't.

Really? Where? The whole bill was written by Pelosi.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But it's wrong. The republicans DID get a chance to add amendments. And after they did, and the democrats voted with them on the amendments just to appease them and appease a bipartisan solution... the republicans STILL vote against it...

The dems gave comprosises, Repubs were allowed a chance to put their voice in. Got some amendments, ect ect ect. Dems didn't stay staunch and keep the EXACT bill they wrote, they made changes to appease Repubs. Just wasn't good enough for the losers I guess.

[TheMercenary]

More from the Demoncratic Wish List, none of which create jobs. Not that some of this does not need funding, but that is not what this bill was intended to do.

$335 million for education related to sexually transmitted diseases

"We have yet to hear any reasonable rationale for how this creates any jobs in the private sector," Paige tod "GMA."

$650 million for coupons to help people make the switch to digital TV

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$150 million for the Smithsonian Institution

$50 million for the National Cemetery Administration's monument and memorial repairs

$800 million for Amtrak, the country's railroad system

$2 billion for child-care subsidies

$400 million for global warming research

$100 million for reducing the danger of lead paint in homes

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects

$50 million for NASA facilities that may have been harmed by natural disaster

$200 million for the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor earthquakes and volcanoes

$650 million for the U.S. Forest Service to remove fish passage barriers, forest improvement and watershed enhancement projects

$1.5 million for a National Institute of Health/Institute of Medicine report to Congress

$50.6 million for services for older blind individuals

$400 million for the Social Security Administration's new National Computer Center

$325 million for Academic Achievement Awards

$70 million for programs to help people quit smoking

$75 million for a super-computer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Busin...6757733&page=1

[Clodfobble]

$2 billion for child-care subsidies

I can see this one. I personally know a couple women who want to go back to work, and even have jobs they could take--but at a lower pay than the jobs they just lost, and the new lower rate won't cover the cost of childcare, so they're just staying home instead. Subsidizing their childcare costs would provide a job for the daycare worker, and allow the parents to get back in the workforce and be productive, at which point they will have more disposable income to spend at the retail stores, etc. etc.

All the rest though, not so much.

[TheMercenary]

I think a lot of stuff can aid people going back to work. In fact a lot of the stuff will create jobs, but they would be very limited in scope as to their effects. Obama promised us hundreds of thousands of jobs, not a few hundred for IT people at NOAA or Stop Smoking cesation programs. Child care, eh, I definately would give you that one. The devil is in the details and so far no one knows what those are. Even those voting yes on them.

[TheMercenary]

What is good for the goose, eh forget it, another tax doger nominated. Only the middle and upper income people should pay taxes, well unless you are a democratic nominee. I can't believe these guys are not better vetted. You shouldn't have to run out and pay your back taxes if you have been properly vetted in the first place, you should be off the short list.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335984751235247.html

[TheMercenary]

This was funny:

My New Spread the Wealth Grading Policy

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeS...grading_policy

[TheMercenary]

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

This site helps drill down to some of the jobs being created, the cost, the project. Fairly interesting and informative stuff.

StimulusWatch.org was built to to help the new administration keep its pledge and to hold public officials to account for the taxpayer money they spend. We do this by allowing you, citizens around the country with local knowledge about the proposed "shovel-ready" projects in your city, to find, discuss and rate those projects.

[morethanpretty]

There is also http://www.recovery.gov/
its an Obama administration thing though, so I doubt it'll be very objective. Its still not yet up, not really anything for them to update it with.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

There is also http://www.recovery.gov/
its an Obama administration thing though, so I doubt it'll be very objective. Its still not yet up, not really anything for them to update it with.

I can barely trust any news site or site that claims to be "non-partisan", often many turn out to be owned or financed by Soro's or some Right-wing equivalent. I certainly would not trust a site hosted by Obama any more than most would trust info from a site hosted by Bush.

[morethanpretty]

All things should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because you expect that some of the info is twisted doesn't mean it isn't insightful. You can learn, even from lies.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

The dems gave comprosises, Repubs were allowed a chance to put their voice in. Got some amendments, ect ect ect. Dems didn't stay staunch and keep the EXACT bill they wrote, they made changes to appease Repubs.

Exactly what amendments were made in the house bill that went to the floor for the vote - aside from killing the money for planned notparenthood?

[morethanpretty]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_161654.html

"Obama also persuaded House Democrats to remove provisions related to family-planning from the stimulus and -- over the objections of many Democrats -- inserted large tax cuts for businesses that Republicans wanted."

So Obama got family-planning removed. What is wrong with family planning? Why is it a bad thing to help the mid and lower class from having children they can't afford and therefore keeping them off of welfare? Or from having to get more government support than they might already be on? I'm a big supporter of family-planning and I think that aiding it, no matter the economic situation, is always a benefit. I know Planned Parenthood was a big benefit to me, in fact my insurance was changed (b/c of the economy and co is saving money) and now is shitty and I'm probably goin to have to start using them again to get my birth control.
They got more tax cuts, which is a major thing they have been crying for.

Asked by the Huffington Post what spending provisions Republicans would support, Cantor said, "I think that if you have infrastructure programs that are meaningful, impactful, and put jobs back into place immediately within the first twelve months, you have a legitimate case for that to be a stimulus.

The stimulus plan provides some $550 billion in direct investment for modernizing infrastructure, expanding broadband, and improving health care delivery systems. Funding is also aimed at shoring up state and local budgets that have gone deeply into the red, preventing layoffs of state workers.

So they want infastructure that is meaningful, impactful, and to get more jobs back? What was their plan for that? All I hear is whining over the democrats plan, no plan of their own.
To top it off, the democrat's plan has $550billion of the $800+billion dedicated to just that.
The dems are working more off of the Keynesian economic theory. The repubs want our natural entrepreneurship to save us.

I don't really understand, yes I know the other side wants/needs to be represented. Is it completely the dems fault that the elected repubs are not able to represent their voting base? If a person is frustrating, pigheaded and outright hostile to work with, are you going to work with them? No. I'm not saying that the republicans are all like this, but I can't help but think that dems are not the only ones with character flaws.
Maybe the republican voters should take another look at their republican representatives.