$838 billion stimulus bill passes Senate

[bmags]

They are hardly in need of "fixes" so badly that they had to be included in that bill. It is a local issue that should be fixed locally, not something that the rest of the country should be paying for.

 

In case you haven't noticed, local/state governments aren't doing so well.

[southsider2k5]

exactly why the stock market is a joke. They set their expectations SO high that when Apple blew everyone away with the iphone... it wasnt good enough for wall street... they demanded and expected more. So, apple went down. it's dumb.

 

I don't think you understand market dynamics. The stock price of a company is a model of future expectations. If those expectations aren't met, then the company's stock price is too high. Its not dumb, its expectations of future earnings.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Seriously. So these roads you claim needed to be fixed are going to be fixed. What does urgently mean.

 

 

It means our representative in congress took the opportunity to sneak in "free money" to a national bill for something that is far from one of the most important things in the area. I mean they arent in pristine shape, and I cant recall what all of them look like off the top of my head but especially the one's downtown I KNOW arent in that bad of shape. Over the past few years I've noticed we've been making roads and intersections "prettier" one at a time. To me, this is being done just to expedite the process. Now is it wrong for our city to be doing this? No. But just as I dont want to my tax dollars to go towards projects out in Iowa or Alabama, why would people there want to be paying for a bill paying for this?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

In case you haven't noticed, local/state governments aren't doing so well.

 

 

Ok, so let's just rely on Daddy the Federal Government to fix everything for us then.

[Steve9347]

What the Recovery and Reinvestment Act means for those of us in Illinois.

 

http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-111-1-24-states/il.pdf

[bmags]

Ok, so let's just rely on Daddy the Federal Government to fix everything for us then.

 

If you are against the stimulus bill, that's fine, but this is the exact things that it set out to do, find underfunded projects, fund them, create jobs, improve infrastructure. It set out to infuse money in the demand market while trying to do things that improve things for the future. But, lets see, resort to childish cliches within a few posts, yep, this is going to be fun.

I can do it to:

Oh no, in a massive stimulus package don't infuse money into public projects that create jobs, big brother oh no

Edited February 18, 2009 by bmags

[Balta1701]

If you are against the stimulus bill, that's fine, but this is the exact things that it set out to do, find underfunded projects, fund them, create jobs, improve infrastructure. It set out to infuse money in the demand market while trying to do things that improve things for the future. But, lets see, resort to childish cliches within a few posts, yep, this is going to be fun.

I can do it to:

Oh no, in a massive stimulus package don't infuse money into public projects that create jobs, big brother oh no

The other thing to remember is that borrowing money for the federal government is a different beast from the state or local governments doing so. IIRC 98% of the states are required to submit some version of a balanced budget every year. There are shenanigoats that get you around those requirements, like borrowing against lottery profits or selling off highways, whatever, but in an economic downturn, the state and local governments are going to feel their budgets dramatically pinched, because it's much harder for them to borrow thanks to those requirements. Then, throw in a massive credit crisis thanks to the scorched-earth policies of the Banks, and really, there's only 1 borrower right now that anyone has any confidence in, who actually has legal authority to do the borrowing, and that's the federal government.

 

Edit: I will agree with one thing though. I'd rather take a lot of the money being spent on road upgrades and spend it on rail transit and electricity production.

[bmags]

The other thing to remember is that borrowing money for the federal government is a different beast from the state or local governments doing so. IIRC 98% of the states are required to submit some version of a balanced budget every year. There are shenanigoats that get you around those requirements, like borrowing against lottery profits or selling off highways, whatever, but in an economic downturn, the state and local governments are going to feel their budgets dramatically pinched, because it's much harder for them to borrow thanks to those requirements. Then, throw in a massive credit crisis thanks to the scorched-earth policies of the Banks, and really, there's only 1 borrower right now that anyone has any confidence in, who actually has legal authority to do the borrowing, and that's the federal government.

 

Edit: I will agree with one thing though. I'd rather take a lot of the money being spent on road upgrades and spend it on rail transit and electricity production.

 

well thank people like Kit Bond for that.

[lostfan]

It means our representative in congress took the opportunity to sneak in "free money" to a national bill for something that is far from one of the most important things in the area. I mean they arent in pristine shape, and I cant recall what all of them look like off the top of my head but especially the one's downtown I KNOW arent in that bad of shape. Over the past few years I've noticed we've been making roads and intersections "prettier" one at a time. To me, this is being done just to expedite the process. Now is it wrong for our city to be doing this? No. But just as I dont want to my tax dollars to go towards projects out in Iowa or Alabama, why would people there want to be paying for a bill paying for this?

Honestly, that's basically the whole point of having elected representation.

[StrangeSox]

It means our representative in congress took the opportunity to sneak in "free money" to a national bill for something that is far from one of the most important things in the area. I mean they arent in pristine shape, and I cant recall what all of them look like off the top of my head but especially the one's downtown I KNOW arent in that bad of shape. Over the past few years I've noticed we've been making roads and intersections "prettier" one at a time. To me, this is being done just to expedite the process. Now is it wrong for our city to be doing this? No. But just as I dont want to my tax dollars to go towards projects out in Iowa or Alabama, why would people there want to be paying for a bill paying for this?

 

How are you going to spend money on roads an infrastructure in a non-local way? I don't think you understand the point of this bill.

Edited February 18, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

1031 projects in Illinois, for $3.1B.... and according to the stim site, not a SINGLE one in the city of Chicago? That can't be right.

 

[kapkomet]

1031 projects in Illinois, for $3.1B.... and according to the stim site, not a SINGLE one in the city of Chicago? That can't be right.

Wasn't that because DICK Daley wasn't going to disclose his list?

 

Besides, Chicago will get its very own stimulus package when the olympics are announced. Think I'm kidding? I think not.

[NorthSideSox72]

Wasn't that because DICK Daley wasn't going to disclose his list?

 

Besides, Chicago will get its very own stimulus package when the olympics are announced. Think I'm kidding? I think not.

I was thinking something like that - the city money for Chicago is still being worked out. Regardless of what you think of Daley, I'm sure it will take time to sift through the city's priorities to see where any money should go.

 

And I don't think you are kidding, I am sure you are right. If Chicago gets the Olympics, there will suddenly be a bunch more money available for transit and other projects.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

ahhh how I love hypocrisy...

We will not support this plan... but yea, give us the money!!

 

House Republicans, as a group, may take great pride in the goose egg they offered President Obama's stimulus package. But now the unanimous opposition is struggling to bring that money home.

 

Republicans will be working hard to make sure the money they opposed ends up benefiting their home districts, highlighting the political tightrope they walk in this economic crisis. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is watching House Republicans -- and reading local media -- closely and is only too happy to highlight any happy talk about a stimulus Republicans voted against.

 

Back in his home district, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) found some nice things to say about the plan.

 

"Within the stimulus package there is some Pell Grant money, which is a good thing. It helps students be able to pay for their education and that's kind of a long term stimulus effect there. I mean obviously that's not gonna provide a job in the next 120, 180 days, but the ability of someone to get an education is an economic development tool," Luetkemeyer said at a local college. He was there, in another inside-outside Washington twist, to celebrate an earmark for a college building.

 

He lamented that there would be far fewer such earmarks in the future. "If they go back to the rules, it will make it very difficult to get earmarks through the next two years because number one we don't have any more money, we just blew it all on this stimulus package. Although, we're gonna have to print some more in order to be able to bail out the financial institutes and the automobile manufacturers," said Luetkemeyer.

 

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that the quotes aren't hypocritical, but rather demonstrate that Republicans did support a stimulus in general, just not the one Democrats presented to them.

[StrangeSox]

1031 projects in Illinois, for $3.1B.... and according to the stim site, not a SINGLE one in the city of Chicago? That can't be right.

 

That website is based on:

 

"Congress and the President are getting ready to spend billions of dollars to try to stimulate the economy. As a result, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has responded by releasing a list of "shovel-ready" projects in cities around the country that the mayors would like to see funded. President Obama, however, has promised to spend stimulus dollars only on critical projects."

 

Daley must not have been a part of that.

 

I heard yesterday that two of Chicago's districts (can't remember which ones) are some of the biggest takers in the bill, along with Judy Biggert's district. Chicago will see plenty of money.

[StrangeSox]

ahhh how I love hypocrisy...

We will not support this plan... but yea, give us the money!!

 

It's not really hypocrisy. They're being forced to pay for it whether they want it or not, so refusing the money doesn't make any sense at all. It would only hurt them.

[NorthSideSox72]

That website is based on:

 

"Congress and the President are getting ready to spend billions of dollars to try to stimulate the economy. As a result, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has responded by releasing a list of "shovel-ready" projects in cities around the country that the mayors would like to see funded. President Obama, however, has promised to spend stimulus dollars only on critical projects."

 

Daley must not have been a part of that.

 

I heard yesterday that two of Chicago's districts (can't remember which ones) are some of the biggest takers in the bill, along with Judy Biggert's district. Chicago will see plenty of money.

I figured that Chicago would get a lot, which is why I was surprised. Must just not be releasing that list (yet), or are still hacking it out.

 

Please please please, have the Fullerton/Damen/Elston nightmare be on the list.

 

[kapkomet]

I was thinking something like that - the city money for Chicago is still being worked out. Regardless of what you think of Daley, I'm sure it will take time to sift through the city's priorities to see where any money should go.

 

And I don't think you are kidding, I am sure you are right. If Chicago gets the Olympics, there will suddenly be a bunch more money available for transit and other projects.

For a group to hold on to the city of Chicago as long as they have, yes, I'm sure it will take time to, ahh, figure out where the money goes.

 

[Cknolls]

In case you haven't noticed, local/state governments aren't doing so well.

 

 

And what strings are attached to their monies?

[jasonxctf]

Nine Fla. Republicans want stim cash

 

They voted no, but they want the dough.

 

We're getting into broken record territory here on Republicans clamoring for stimulus money.

 

Nine GOP House members from Florida, all stimulus no's, joined nine of their Democratic colleagues, all yesses, in asking the feds to grant a waiver giving them access to, you guessed it, hundreds of millions in state stabilization stimulus cash.

 

“This critical funding is vital to protecting our schools from budget cuts and teacher layoffs. Because Florida has been hit especially hard by a rise in foreclosures, unemployment, and recent natural disasters, we are experiencing a crippling budget crisis. Now more than ever, we must invest in our state’s future,” said the letter.

 

The Republican co-signers: Adam Putnam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Tom Rooney, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ginny Brown-Waite, Cliff Stearns, John Mica and Bill Posey.

 

The Dems: Suzanne Kosmos, Ron Klein, Alcee Hastings, Robert Wexler, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kathy Castor, Kendrick Meek, Alan Grayson and Corrine Brown.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I think this argument about the GOP'ers looking for the money being hypocritical is not realistic. They fought against the bill, for some good reasons and some stupid ones, and using some stupid tactics. But, once the money is set for the exits, they HAVE to get as much as they can, or they aren't doing their jobs.

 

There is plenty to be disappointed in, when looking at Congressional Republican behavior over this bill. But on this, they are doing the only thing they can, and they should.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think this argument about the GOP'ers looking for the money being hypocritical is not realistic. They fought against the bill, for some good reasons and some stupid ones, and using some stupid tactics. But, once the money is set for the exits, they HAVE to get as much as they can, or they aren't doing their jobs.

 

There is plenty to be disappointed in, when looking at Congressional Republican behavior over this bill. But on this, they are doing the only thing they can, and they should.

 

Especially since if you take the Democratic logic to the opposite extreme, they shouldn't be using anything with gasoline or oil because they voted against oil exploration, and want other fuel sources. They shouldn't be sending troops to Afganistan, because we don't invade sovereign nations, and then we definitely don't send more troops there when things get bad. They shouldn't ever use a bank, since they want to put restrictions on how they operate. They shouldn't drive cars, because they want higher fuel standards. They shouldn't use their insurance at the doctors until everyone has coverage, heck they should get rid of their Congressional retirements, pensions, and insurance until the entire nation has it. Etc, etc, etc.

[Balta1701]

Especially since if you take the Democratic logic to the opposite extreme, they shouldn't be using anything with gasoline or oil because they voted against oil exploration, and want other fuel sources. They shouldn't be sending troops to Afganistan, because we don't invade sovereign nations, and then we definitely don't send more troops there when things get bad. They shouldn't ever use a bank, since they want to put restrictions on how they operate. They shouldn't drive cars, because they want higher fuel standards. They shouldn't use their insurance at the doctors until everyone has coverage, heck they should get rid of their Congressional retirements, pensions, and insurance until the entire nation has it. Etc, etc, etc.

I'm totally willing to grant you this point.

 

So here's the question...on the ones who take it further than that. The ones who go back to their districts and then say "look at the great program coming to this district" and that program happens to be in the stimulus bill they voted against and called the worst socialism in history or whatever.

 

Does that rise to a different level? Because that's already been happening.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Especially since if you take the Democratic logic to the opposite extreme, they shouldn't be using anything with gasoline or oil because they voted against oil exploration, and want other fuel sources.

actually, the example there would be to not use oil from off-shore. Democrats havent voted against oil, just certain explorations.

[southsider2k5]

I'm totally willing to grant you this point.

 

So here's the question...on the ones who take it further than that. The ones who go back to their districts and then say "look at the great program coming to this district" and that program happens to be in the stimulus bill they voted against and called the worst socialism in history or whatever.

 

Does that rise to a different level? Because that's already been happening.

 

When else has there been a trillion dollar spending program proposed? Its hard to compare this to anything else if you want to talk about a different level. I am sure if you looked at it, there are plenty of examples that could be found the other way.