• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition

House OKs $787B stimulus bill with GOP opposition


WASHINGTON (AP) - Handing the new administration a big win, House Democrats passed President Barack Obama's $787 billion plan to resuscitate the economy on Friday despite a wall of Republican opposition. The bill was approved 246-183 and sent to the Senate, where a vote was scheduled late Friday afternoon.
That vote was to be held open for hours, waiting for Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown, who was attending a memorial service for his mother and then flying back to cast the deciding vote.

Senate passage would meet a deadline of sending the bill to Obama before a congressional recess begins next week.

The 1,071 page, 8-inch-thick measure combines $281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses with more than a half-trillion dollars in government spending. The money would go for infrastructure, health care and help for cash-starved state governments, among scores of programs. Seniors would get a $250 bonus Social Security check.



And not one has read it.



YouTube - GOP Leader Boehner Floor Speech Opposing Democrats' Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill
 
$787 billion that the US do not have. Smart move :roll:

Better than bailouts however, which is just throwing away money you didn't have into the flames.


I wonder how many generations that will suffer for the past generation..
 
I realise this is an important bill but a lot if not most that are voted on or passed are not read by most. There are far too many and they are far too big. This is one of the many curses of centralised, bureaucatised, overbearing gov't.
 
Last edited:
$281 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses

Amazing that you give tax cuts when you have government federal deficits.. That will just be counterproductive. Those taxes WILL have to be payed eventually, and when they do have to be payed an even worse economic crisis will start.. The hangover of the overspending time, which we just keep postponing.
 
Hit the play button.


And tell me. can you read 1100 pages in less than what 12 hours?

Thats not evidence that "no one has read it", its just his opinion.. But it is reasonable however.. Why in the world is the document 1100 pages in the first place in a time where government need to try to be more transparent?
 
Hit the play button.


And tell me. can you read 1100 pages in less than what 12 hours?

yes you can, but that is beside the point. He is grandstanding. He knows very well that most of the bill has been available for days if not over a week. It is not like they ripped up the house and senate bills and totally rewrote the whole thing.

And it is so funny, that the Republicans are acting like spoilt children on this issue, and yet they have managed to read it well enough to get several parts taken out and criticized other parts...... so much for not having time to read it.

Or maybe it is because he is too thick to read fast enough.... and has he ever heard of delegating? lets see.. 11 people, 100 pages each.. can read that in what.. 2 hours if we stretch it?.. especially since the content aint exactly "new".

Sorry, but just another attempt by the Republican's to act like spoilt children.....waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh mommy I want my candy... wahhhhhh
 
Should I respond to the conjecture, the baseless speculation, or the ignorance of how the US Government operates.


BTW Your avatar sucks.

I know.. My avatar does suck, but I have it as a response to all the people who groundlessly call me anti-American.. Just have to put it up for their satisfaction..

Anyways, if you don't agree with Pete a personal attack is just a very stupid way of showing that, and actual answer would be better, even no answer at all..
Where I am from debate etiquette dictates "do not take the person, take the opinion/post".

Any response like yours would be judged as "less developed"..
 
Last edited:
I know.. My avatar does suck, but I have it as a response to all the people who groundlessly call me anti-American.. Just have to put it up for their satisfaction..

Anyways, if you don't agree with Pete a personal attack is just a very stupid way of showing that, and actual answer would be better, even no answer at all..
Where I am from debate etiquette dictates "do not take the person, take the opinion/post".

Any response like yours would be judged as "less developed"..




And your "critisizm" would be judged "selective"
 
And your "critisizm" would be judged "selective"

Certainly. I could say the same in a lot of case, but I just was disappointed by you, because I expected more from you than groundless post/opinion/personal attacks..

I would not be surprised if it came from hordes of other people, but from you :shock:
 
Certainly. I could say the same in a lot of case, but I just was disappointed by you, because I expected more from you than groundless post/opinion/personal attacks..

I would not be surprised if it came from hordes of other people, but from you :shock:




:lol:
have you read his posts? I was being kind. ;)


Fallacy: Appeal to Flattery


:mrgreen:
 
:lol:
have you read his posts? I was being kind. ;)


Fallacy: Appeal to Flattery


:mrgreen:

Anyways, enough of this.. You seem to be against the bill? But why?

I was utterly against the bailouts and think those funds could have been better spend in a stimulus package. I have problems however with the stimulus package, the tax cut parts of it, which I consider throwing more money at the economic bonfire. If the stimulus package is to work it should only be directed at government programs such as infrastructure spendings which against leads to job stimulation and other economic stimulation.

I dont support the stimulus package, because I think it will do more harm than good, considering you cannot afford it.
 
the economic patriot act. Nobody reads it, but they pass it anyway because they are told that bad things will happen if they don't.
 
He knows very well that most of the bill has been available for days if not over a week. It is not like they ripped up the house and senate bills and totally rewrote the whole thing.

You're a liar. This bill hasn't been available to read for over a week. It's been redacted several times, and the final version wasn't available until 12 hours prior to the vote.

Obama's campaign promise was transparency. He would make sure, bills would be posted in their entirety, on his website for the American people to read, 5 days prior to it being voted on.

Obama's been in office less than a month, and he's lied about everything so far.
 
Hit the play button.


And tell me. can you read 1100 pages in less than what 12 hours?

Dude, the bill started weeks ago. To think that this is all of a sudden a drastically new bill is wrong. It was modified, yes, but not so much as to think that they don't know what is in it.

"Hey Bob, here's the new bill. Pages 250-278 were changed to make compromises for the senate version. Take a look at those, the rest wasn't touched." This could very well be (and I would think MOST likely) the way of it, but people immediately jump to the conclusion that Democrats are up to no good.

As soon as the spending starts to happen at home we see people throw a fit. Spend the money on foreign governments, military spending, and wars and people seem to feel better about spending borrowed money. Go figure.
 
Dude, the bill started weeks ago. To think that this is all of a sudden a drastically new bill is wrong. It was modified, yes, but not so much as to think that they don't know what is in it.

"Hey Bob, here's the new bill. Pages 250-278 were changed to make compromises for the senate version. Take a look at those, the rest wasn't touched." This could very well be (and I would think MOST likely) the way of it, but people immediately jump to the conclusion that Democrats are up to no good.

As soon as the spending starts to happen at home we see people throw a fit. Spend the money on foreign governments, military spending, and wars and people seem to feel better about spending borrowed money. Go figure.

people sneak their pet projects into bills all the time. This is a new bill and needs to be treated as such

mental note to never trust Indy to of read the fine print of legal contracts.
 
people sneak their pet projects into bills all the time. This is a new bill and needs to be treated as such

So in general if you read an 1100 page bill, and small parts of it is changed, and which parts changed is mentioned in a side document(normal routine), then you go ahead and re-read the whole 1100 pages, instead of reading the parts that has changed or the chapters those parts belong to?
 
As soon as the spending starts to happen at home we see people throw a fit. Spend the money on foreign governments, military spending, and wars and people seem to feel better about spending borrowed money. Go figure.

I agree with you that some people are wrong for showing outrage over this spending yet didn't carewhen Bush was doing it. Hell dumbass Republicans were trying to tell us that the economy was doing just fine until they couldn't lie any longer because everyone saw it.

But all spending should be carefully looked at whether it is going for foreign or domestic.

This bill with its extra addons was passed too quickly.

For instance, what are the exact ramifications of taking an extra week to look at this bill? Obama is acting like if it took an extra day the fall of the U.S. would happen.

I would rather spending be going on for the U.S. rather than Iraq or Afghanistan, but given that the majority voted to boot out the Bush style wreckless spending, it doesn't make wreckless spending ok if it is done at home anymore than if it was done for foreign interests.
 
Dude, the bill started weeks ago. To think that this is all of a sudden a drastically new bill is wrong. It was modified, yes, but not so much as to think that they don't know what is in it.

"Hey Bob, here's the new bill. Pages 250-278 were changed to make compromises for the senate version. Take a look at those, the rest wasn't touched." This could very well be (and I would think MOST likely) the way of it, but people immediately jump to the conclusion that Democrats are up to no good.

As soon as the spending starts to happen at home we see people throw a fit. Spend the money on foreign governments, military spending, and wars and people seem to feel better about spending borrowed money. Go figure.



Hey man, Obama said we could read the bill for 5 days before he signs it. Do you have a link?
 
Back
Top Bottom