Iam sorry Brad, but I have to give Obama a chance before I criticize his actions. Otherwise, we will get slammed with "why all this hate for our President" articles.

To hell with it. We are going to hell in a handbasket faster than SpeedRacer can win a 5 meter race. It's amazing how some here BBQed Bush for doing the same thing that Obama isabout to do except he spent less and did not have nearly as much BS as this next stimilus sham.

Unbelievable.  People have lost their minds in this country.

This needs to be highlighted:

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

A few tidbits on this from Mark Steyn.

LOL BO just punked ya!

I'd sure like to hear what the Obama supporters think of this. 

well I posted this exact link in another forum and to be honest even alot of the Dems are sick to their tummies on this one... and in fact I have not seen one yet defend this....although I have seen one guy try to blame bush ( go figure ) because its his fualt for starting this whole "stimulas" thing... I slapped him in the face by reminding him you cant blame bush anymore hes long gone back to texas...

I am sorry Brad, but I have to give Obama a chance before I criticize his actions. Otherwise, we will get slammed with "why all this hate for our President" articles.

My dad summarized this attitude as "You gotta swear him in before you cuss him out."

Are you suggesting that you think we should just try out this bill, that is currently in congress, and wait until it is a disaster before objecting?

I don't see any "hate" for Obama. I see disagreement to his policies.  Having seen the treatment Bush got over the past 8 years (who can forget Col Gene), we have a pretty good contrast of the difference between disagreement and hate.

A pretty feeble point, especially given it was bush who presided over huge deficits that means the government needs to borrow lots more to fund a fiscal stimulus. No details given on whether inflation was factored in, if so what inflation rate was used, or the interest rate for the money borrowed - will it be on a fixed rate for the 10 years, or has one been assumed and if so what rate was used?

No mention of how much (unless it was buried away in the linked article). Besides government funding for contraceptives isn't necessarily a bad thing - it can help reduce the rates of STD's, thus improving the health of the population. It also encourages couples to wait until they can cope with a baby before getting pregnan (which probably means they'll be more likely to have sufficient income to provide for that child and thus not be reliant on state handouts, and also less likely to have to abandon education to see to the child, thus meaning the skills of the nation improve slightly, meaning it's in turn a slight investment in the future)

Could? Not very specific, suggesting it's put in to allow a more sensationalist 'fact'

Don't know enough about the digital TV coupons to comment either way. Maybe it's a program to give poor households plasma TVs, or maybe it's funding to help the switchover between analogue and digital tv. The latter could have some merit. New cars - are they energy efficient? If so then this is a nice investment in the future. No details are given as to the current level of spending on replacement cars for the government either, or whether this figure is ontop of such levels. Money for colleges/universities - on what, bursary funds, or improvements to the colleges+universities? The latter is an investment in the future, focusing on improving the skills of the workforce, helping improve their productivity/earning potential, meaning a healthier long term economy (and increased tax revenues from those workers helping to pay for some of the money spent). Repairs: Well you'd hope things would get repaired rather than left to collapse and cost even more to then fix. Without knowing the specifics of this it's difficult to see just how much of this would be cost efficient repairs, and what wouldn't be. Regardless in the context of the overall amount it's a tiny tiny figure, as is the arts funding.

So? If those government programs achieve stuff worth roughly that amount of money, then what's the issue?

Shouldn't the key focus be on getting the most effective plan, rather than getting the plan that provides spending to the fewest amount of federal programs?

I'd prefer a reference to this point since it sounds like a potential twisted and/or out of context point. If the government flew over a neighbourhood and dropped bags of money randomly it would have a chance at keeping or growing jobs. If the government decided to throw billions of dollars into providing free contraceptives it would have a chance at keeping or growing jobs.

The author(s) seem to be struggling to make up their mind. In point 1 they seem to be attacking spending a ton of money now (via borrowing) due to the interest costs. Now they seem to be attacking spreading out that spending/borrowing over time.

9-12: 4 different ways of just saying $825bn.

13: Something tells me that more things might come under the transport+infrastructure category than just roads+highways spending.

Don't have time to cover the rest, although I thought point 16 was amusing - $22.3bn is a "scant" amount when it's for small businesses, while $44m for repairs is singled out in an earlier point (presumably as an example of an excessive amount).

Nancy... is this your handle maudlan27?

Points ive takin from your post

IT great to have even more gov oversite...

Its still bushs fualt.

You have no issues with programs to provide more condoms for people that does use em anyways

Keep is up because I am sorry I am laughing at you. Im sorry if this is a blow to your ego...but its comical seeing you far lefties defending something that is hardly going to "stimulate" the economy with all the fat in this..

If you can't see how an ~$800bn spending package wouldn't have a stimulating effect on the economy you could really do with taking some basic economics lessons. The money wouldn't even need to be used that wisely to stimulate the economy there's so much there. Simply throwing it at a few random industries picked from the hat would stimulate it. Just so long as you're not stupid enough to throw it all at a place within a short time frame (which the linked article amusingly points out several times that it won't, and thinks it is a negative point) you'll stimulate the economy+create jobs.

Also amusing how some of you are so lacking in any arguments that the only thing you can repeat is 'far left', or 'liberal', or 'socialist' (or for the really ignorant people, 'communist'), as though somehow throwing names at someone renders any argument they present void.

Fine you pay the bill okay? I take it that your gonna be the one that benifits from this.... I mean after all you want to see how well stuff works like this you need to look no further than our wonderful state of California... Whats that you say? they are broke? omg who woulda though careless spending woulda put them there!

But keep blaming bush for this if it makes you feel better. I hope the poor people put condoms to good use...or the organic grass... you know... i always though grass was grass and was "organic" but hey a little bit more gov oversite never hurts anything right? lets get americans used to more big gov... afterall thats what the Libs want and before you know it even more people depend on it! so its a win win there!

I think the condom issue is valid (is the Trojan Co. laying off workers?), cause we are all about to get f**ked.

It was damn stupid of bush to run up a huge deficit, it is damn stupid of obama to run up a BIGGER deficit than bush... Why is it than when bush does something it's evil and when obama does the EXACT SAME THING it is all good?

Notice that not a single republican here said "bush did well in pushing a 700bil stim pack, obama is stupid for his 825bil stim pack". They are all saying BOTH stim packs are stupid. While the liberals here are saying bush's was stupid and obama's is great.

btw.... Bo's plan will cost twice as much from what I hear... along the lines of 2 trillion dollars