i hope it works i don't want americans coming to our countries and stealing jobs from hard working good people or coming over illegally

It's not a lot of money if you compare it to what European countries that are much smaller are spending.

If you break down the numbers the only thing this stimulates is all the pockets of who got Obama elected. It's full of pork.

I wanted to say yes, but I couldn't agree with that answer exactly.

I'm on the fence -- I'm not opposed to the idea, but I am opposed to where a lot of the money is going.

I'm sitting on the fence with this. I like where some of the money will go, but not other places. The only part I completely agree with is the schools... but my only fear is those schools will never see the money.

A lot of it is pork and a lot of it is gov't jobs and contract work that once its done, its done and those people are back to being unemployed again.

Which would you guys consider pork specifically? Just curious.

Does anyone know if this will specifically include a tax stimulus (mailing a stimulus check to almost every taxpayer) like the Bush administration did last year?

I wanted to say no, but couldn't agree with that answer exactly. (Not to steal your wording, mydiadem.)

I agree that we need a stimulus bill and support parts of it, but don't agree with the whole thing as it stands.

Also, the yes answer is incorrect. The Republicans do not have a tax-cut only approach.

exactly lil, we haven't seen that since the original Bush tax cut like 7 years ago and it wasn't during a recession.

pioneers - I don't think there will be a stimulus check this time. They are going for tax cuts instead of mailing direct checks to the public.

I wanted to vote Yes and I did- but I did not agree with the reasons. I think the plan is a good start but I think it needs to be brushed up or made clear exactly how each dollar is going towards economic stimulus. Some of the parts are vague and while I agree with the end result I am curious as to how exactly it will happen.

What do you guys mean by pork? There is specifically no pork in this bill.

"a lot of it is gov't jobs and contract work that once its done, its done and those people are back to being unemployed again."

I disagree. For example, a person that helps connect part of the new energy grid would still have those skills for when the remainder of the grid needs to be built, and for when it needs to be repaired.

I think the bill has a good balance...part tax cuts to stimulate the economy quickly, part spending to employ and fix major problems that we have. I think that once again the Republicans on the hill have played good politics with their PR machine, but I don't think they have given any legitimate reasons for disagreeing with this bill.

The text of the bill contains little to no pork, but the hundreds of amendments being proposed (many of which have already passed) are full of pork. And, the text of the bill contains multiple provisions that may be needed, but should not be part of a stimulus package, such as money to repair VA cemeteries. Plenty of legitimate concerns have been raised and are easily findable for those who are willing to spend about five minutes looking.

thanks, starangel--that's definitely good to hear.

I didn't realize that disagreement with a concern meant it wasn't legitimate. I learn something new every day!

And who said anything about more tax cuts? (on this thread)

Additionally, if we are only concerned about what gives us "more bang for the buck," we should cut out huge portions of this bill and put all of the money toward specific areas, since development in some areas has been shown to provide a higher return than in others.

The Republicans on the hill have talked of tax cuts. A lot. I never said that you talked about tax cuts.

And they are putting money towards specific areas with more "bang for buck", like the health care system, etc. Upgrading the information systems will save not only consumers money, but it will also decrease the amount of money needed from the government for plans like medicare, etc.

I love when people ignore what I say and make snarky comments instead.

I never said that you said I talked about tax cuts. Who's playing the "semantics game" now.

And my point was that, if bang for the buck is all we are concerned about, we wouldn't just put more money toward those areas, we would put all of the money toward those areas.

Wow Jill is sure being touchy. I saw no condescension and Kim specifically said that tax cuts aren't the sole answer.

I agree that tax cuts arent the sole answer either, but expanding gov't and adding more GOVERNMENT jobs isn't the answer either. We can't use an recession as an excuse to expand the government.

Some things that I've seen that might be included in the stimulus are 200 million to rehab the National Mall. 50 million for the National Endowment for the arts.General Services Administration would get $600 million to replace its older fleet of vehicles with new alternative-fuel cars and trucks.

I don't see how those create long term, lasting jobs.

Hence, pork.

Besides, didn't the Congressional Budget Office say that only 7% of that infrastructure money would make its way into the economy this year? Didn't they also say that only 38% would be spent by the end of 2010?

"Upgrading the information systems will save not only consumers money, but it will also decrease the amount of money needed from the government for plans like medicare, etc. "

Yes, its a good idea, but once those systems are updated and all those people are back in the workforce unless other companies can hire them because they have the work or ability to, they're still unemployed.

Thats why we need to make this a stimulus for companies and not for the government.

It seems to be that people are trying to sneak in projects that should be under a regular budget into this stimulus package and we can't let this package become a carte blanche to get every in an ideal world project passed.

Just popping in to say that "Plenty of legitimate concerns have been raised and are easily findable for those who are willing to spend about five minutes looking" does sound pretty condescending to me, Lil. I don't know if that was your intention, but that is how it sounds.

I think it's pretty clear that I didn't "just pop in" to say that. I had previously commented and that comment itself included at least one specific concern.

Here's just one of the proposed amendments that, to me, is pork:

Would designate $15 million for the Historic Preservation Fund within the National Park Service for the renovation and preservation of buildings on Historically Black Colleges and Universities campuses. It also waives the institutional match for projects under this provision.

No, Lil, I popped in to say that. To say that that sentence came off as condescending.

Oh, I see what you're saying. And I see how it could come off that way, but no, that was not my intention.

I personally think it's condescending to dismiss others' concerns as illegitimate with explanation as to why.

I think it was just a rejection of the notion that no intelligent reasonable person could be against this bill as if there are no flaws with it whatsoever.

Actually, I'm not really sure how any could interpret that one otherwise.

50 million for the National Endowment for the arts....I don't see how those create long term, lasting jobs.

Haus, I have to disagree with this statement.

#39 is in reference to #37.

And yes haus, it was.

But thats just it Amy, we don't know where that 50 million is going. Is it going to hire more people to work for the National Endowment? Is it getting handed out to random "artists"?

We don't know. Thats the problem.

I haven't even looked into who is going to track where this money goes. We didn't seem to have very good accountablity last time around, I think that needs to be fixed before we even talk about spending this money.

Amy, I somewhat agree with you on that one...Well, I am torn as to whether that should be part of a stimulus package.

However, haus, I am with you in that many of the other provisions create temporary jobs that don't require a very specific skill set, like the revitalization of the mall or the repair of VA cemeteries. I think the money being poured into Amtrak, which loses money every year, is not needed either.

Haus, that's actually another one of the concerns that has been raised with the bill. Everyone on the accountability board will be appointed by the President, so congress will have no say in who is appointed.

I just think the point of a stimulus package should be to create long term lasting employment for people. Not government contract work that could be done in a year and we're back to where we are now.

We can't depend on the government to employ these people, we need to depend on industry to employ these people.

"I never said that you said I talked about tax cuts."

They why did you say this?
"And who said anything about more tax cuts? (on this thread)"

CBO report you are referring to Haus, is one that came out in regards to a portion of the bill, and it was an old draft of the bill. I can see where you would get the impression that it was accurate because the Hill Repubs have been quoting night and day, but it isn't accurate and doesn't analyze the whole bill.
And you don't see how getting a new fleet of energy efficent cars would help? First, car manufactures and their employees could start making more cars, secondly less tax money would be spent on gas in fuel efficient cars. With the National Mall, they would have to order lots of seed from companies. They would employ more people, the people that make the packaging would hire more people. There would be more adminstrative staff to run their offices, etc. You would hire people to put the seed down, etc. As I said before, you get more bang for the buck with projects because it spreads.

And it wouldn't just stop with these projects. As the companies and employees make more money, they spend more money, strengthening industry and creating more jobs.

If you don't agree, that is fine. Based on what i have heard from economists, investing in jobs versus tax cuts is best. If people don't want more tax cuts, but they don't want investment in jobs, they what are you suggesting? I sincerely would like to hear what another option is.

And I do have to say that I don't think Pelosi has handled this well, and I think house democrats need a big lesson in making a compelling argument to the public. But at the end of the day this bill does a lot to help. Especially since they will be able to track the spending of it online, I think Congress will feel more vulnerable to scrutiny.

I said that because I wanted it to be clear that no one on here had said anything about additional tax cuts.

Just to clarify, I have nothing against the arts. I have a problem with handing money out scotch free to artists, but thats another conversation.

I just don't see how that particular part can create long term growth.

Additionally, a Congressional Report has been put out that analyzes the entire bill, as it (the House version) stands now. Interesting that you would assume haus was referring to the old report.

Haus, I think we are on the same page but have different ideas of how to get the ball rolling.

If you want long term job creation, but at the same time don't want them all being government employees, where does that leave you? You get the $$ ball rolling by varying it up between long/short term projects. These employed people spend their money, creating other industry. For the people that work on short term projects, they can be employed in stronger job market that was created by their spending. This also keeps them from being in a "government" job long term.

Here is the CBO report that was released yesterday:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf

"And you don't see how getting a new fleet of energy efficent cars would help? First, car manufactures and their employees could start making more cars, secondly less tax money would be spent on gas in fuel efficient cars"

Yep, and once those cars are made and sold, then what? The regular everyday citizen isn't buying a new car. So there ya go, all those jobs are gone again.

But Jill if the spending of the employed people is the key, then why arent we cutting taxes?

I agree, hausfrau and lilkimbo, that we definitely need more oversight and accountability. Where has the money we've already spent gone? I might be okay with spending this money if I knew exactly where it was going and knew someone was in charge of keeping track, but I'm worried we're going to spend a trillion dollars and have nothing to show for it.

I don't think I know enough about economics to say whether we should be putting more into tax cuts or not. It does make more sense to give money to companies to create jobs, but if there's no accountability for how the money is spent, I don't see a difference between passing out cash to artists vs passing out cash to companies.

Sweet Lilkimbo. The 38% figure she quoted was from the original report.