What's in the stimulus bill?

[Free Press Publisher Jim Santori]

A different kind of transparency.
Found this website Read The Stimulus (http://readthestimulus.org/index.php) that headlines "$850 Billion, 1588 pages, and counting... somebody needs to read it!" and it let's you do just that.
Note, viewer beware: The sponsors of this website are not exactly non-partisan ... Heritage Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union.
But at least we get to read the full document which was more than the lawmakers could do before voting.

[Dan Conner]

A different kind of transparency.
Found this website Read The Stimulus (http://readthestimulus.org/index.php) that headlines "$850 Billion, 1588 pages, and counting... somebody needs to read it!" and it let's you do just that.
Note, viewer beware: The sponsors of this website are not exactly non-partisan ... Heritage Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union.
But at least we get to read the full document which was more than the lawmakers could do before voting.

Jim, I also suggest you refer to www.recovery.gov, where spending of the stimulus is going to be tracked, including the number of jobs created. I understand it is up and will be improved over time.

I don't think I would trust this website as a copy of the stimulus bill. It is 647 pages, not 1588. The actual .pdf file of the document is on the Huffington Post site at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html

Try that one.

[Dan Conner]

Attached is an informative article about Alan Greenspan and his duplicity in our economic woes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/alan-greenspan-the-oracle_n_168168.html

The article (as well as othe sources I 've read) pointed out that Alan's unswerving devotion to remove government regulation, was a prime contributor to our economic calamity.

[Bob Jentges]

A different kind of transparency.
Found this website Read The Stimulus (http://readthestimulus.org/index.php) that headlines "$850 Billion, 1588 pages, and counting... somebody needs to read it!" and it let's you do just that.
Note, viewer beware: The sponsors of this website are not exactly non-partisan ... Heritage Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union.
But at least we get to read the full document which was more than the lawmakers could do before voting.

I checked the "Read The Stimulus" website (not in any depth at all) and in manuvering through it I think one can find the various provisions of the Bill, with opinion analysis, in differrent links. I occassionally look at the Heritage Foundation website and like most (even many that do not subscribe to their ideology) find them credible. As many might expect, my visits to Huffington Post have decreased over time because when I did visit I did not find them at all objective, just like some may not find Heritage Foundation objective. It's all in a state of mind.

I doubt I will spend much time reading the actual bill. I might have had it been put on the internet 48 hours before being voted on as promised. When neither the members of congress nor the president read it before the vote or signing I doubt it will do me much good to read it now; I guess it's the law. About all we can do now is follow the money as Dan Connor suggests.

Before final passage of the so-called "Stimulus Bill", on 2/09/09 I wrote a "MY VIEW" article for The Free Press expressing my thoughts on the process as it worked its way through the U. S. House and Senate. That article was not published; I am not complaining. My article was apparranly beat out by The Old Scout's final (I hope) Bush bashing column. Before anyone misinterprets what I am saying here, in no way shape or form do I mean to suggest that I am in any way comparable to Garrison Keillor as a writer. I am a big fan of Mr. Keillor, except when he delves into the politics of personal destruction.

[Dan Conner]

I checked the "Read The Stimulus" website (not in any depth at all) and in manuvering through it I think one can find the various provisions of the Bill, with opinion analysis, in differrent links. I occassionally look at the Heritage Foundation website and like most (even many that do not subscribe to their ideology) find them credible. As many might expect, my visits to Huffington Post have decreased over time because when I did visit I did not find them at all objective, just like some may not find Heritage Foundation objective. It's all in a state of mind.

I doubt I will spend much time reading the actual bill. I might have had it been put on the internet 48 hours before being voted on as promised. When neither the members of congress nor the president read it before the vote or signing I doubt it will do me much good to read it now; I guess it's the law. About all we can do now is follow the money as Dan Connor suggests.

Before final passage of the so-called "Stimulus Bill", on 2/09/09 I wrote a "MY VIEW" article for The Free Press expressing my thoughts on the process as it worked its way through the U. S. House and Senate. That article was not published; I am not complaining. My article was apparranly beat out by The Old Scout's final (I hope) Bush bashing column. Before anyone misinterprets what I am saying here, in no way shape or form do I mean to suggest that I am in any way comparable to Garrison Keillor as a writer. I am a big fan of Mr. Keillor, except when he delves into the politics of personal destruction.

The Huffington Post had the actual bill, not the biased reactionary twist to it. I doubt you will spend much time reading it too. The bill WAS published several days ahead of passage on Huffington. There were some changes made in the final bill, which is always the case.

[Bob Jentges]

The Huffington Post had the actual bill, not the biased reactionary twist to it. I doubt you will spend much time reading it too. The bill WAS published several days ahead of passage on Huffington. There were some changes made in the final bill, which is always the case.

Apparrantly someone "leaked" it to Huffington Post. I'm shocked! I would have preferred it had been "officially" posted by government officials 48 hours before the vote as promised because then I might have found it and maybe even read at least parts of it.

I sent emails to Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar before the vote and suggested that if they had not read the Bill before the vote they should vote "Present". I knew that would be an exercise in futility for me, but I did it anyway. However, I did get nice pre-prepared replies from both (not addressing my concerns) telling me all the good things they had done for their constituants.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

The library of congress site or "Thomas" as listed below is the official government site for listing of the bill, amendments, votes, final passage, etc. I find this site incredibly useful and straight forward...it even has things like CBO cost estimates...etc.
Anyway, the conference report that both house and Senate voted on as the final bill shows up as 785 pdf pages.....the Gov. Printing office version of HR. 1 is 407 pages.
Heritage and Huffington have their own takes to be sure....i like the raw, straight bill info.this site also provides a nice summary of the bill by the Congressional Research Service, also very credible group.


http://thomas.loc.gov/

[Bob Jentges]

The library of congress site or "Thomas" as listed below is the official government site for listing of the bill, amendments, votes, final passage, etc. I find this site incredibly useful and straight forward...it even has things like CBO cost estimates...etc.
Anyway, the conference report that both house and Senate voted on as the final bill shows up as 785 pdf pages.....the Gov. Printing office version of HR. 1 is 407 pages.
Heritage and Huffington have their own takes to be sure....i like the raw, straight bill info.this site also provides a nice summary of the bill by the Congressional Research Service, also very credible group.


http://thomas.loc.gov/

Thanks Joe. I have Bookmarked the web site for future reference.

[Dan Conner]

Apparrantly someone "leaked" it to Huffington Post. I'm shocked! I would have preferred it had been "officially" posted by government officials 48 hours before the vote as promised because then I might have found it and maybe even read at least parts of it.

I sent emails to Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar before the vote and suggested that if they had not read the Bill before the vote they should vote "Present". I knew that would be an exercise in futility for me, but I did it anyway. However, I did get nice pre-prepared replies from both (not addressing my concerns) telling me all the good things they had done for their constituants.

Bob--

It was published on several websites. CNN too, I believe. However, Joe gave you the official government website. That website would also have the latest bill after going through the House/Senate conference.

[Dan Conner]

Paul Volker said the US might be headed for something worse than the Great Depression. This quote was taken from the Huffington Post and was from a meeting where Paul Volker spoke:

And while major banks should be more tightly controlled and less able to make the sort of risky bets that led to their current debacle, Volcker said there should also be more oversight of some kind for hedge funds, equity funds and the remaining investment banks.

He scoffed at the notion that those entities must be free to innovate _ stating that financial "innovations" like asset backed securities and credit default swaps have brought few benefits. The most important "innovation" in banking for most people in the last 20 or 30 years, he maintained, is the automatic teller machine.

The link is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html

[Bob Jentges]

The title of this thread is: What's in the Stimulus Bill. After living with it for about a year one might ask---Why did it fail?

After learning that 34,000 jobs were lost In February 2010 and unemployment held steady at 9.7% the always astute Harry Reid referred to the job loss news with the comment "which is really good". If that's "really good" what is bad? Maybe the amicable Mr. Reid came to his conclusion because unemployment was projected to increase to 9.8% in February. I guess the "snowstorm" did not have have as great an effect on unemployment as Larry Summers thought it might.

Keynsians probably will say the "Stimulus Bill" failed because the government did not spend enough. I say government spending during a recession probably made things worse. It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline at it. It seems like the only place there was job growth was in the public sector.

Now apparreantly there is talk about a second stimulus. We do not have any money, so the only way new jobs could be paid for by the government is to increase taxes on productive people, borrowing more money, or printing new money and causing inflation.

What is the solution? Give the market place some stability it can count on with a tax cut for businesses, eliminating some regulations, etc., and let the free market work its wonders. It is worth a try---it's worked before---the present course is not getting the job done!

[Dan Conner]

The title of this thread is: What's in the Stimulus Bill. After living with it for about a year one might ask---Why did it fail?

After learning that 34,000 jobs were lost In February 2010 and unemployment held steady at 9.7% the always astute Harry Reid referred to the job loss news with the comment "which is really good". If that's "really good" what is bad? Maybe the amicable Mr. Reid came to his conclusion because unemployment was projected to increase to 9.8% in February. I guess the "snowstorm" did not have have as great an effect on unemployment as Larry Summers thought it might.

Keynsians probably will say the "Stimulus Bill" failed because the government did not spend enough. I say government spending during a recession probably made things worse. It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline at it. It seems like the only place there was job growth was in the public sector.

Now apparreantly there is talk about a second stimulus. We do not have any money, so the only way new jobs could be paid for by the government is to increase taxes on productive people, borrowing more money, or printing new money and causing inflation.

What is the solution? Give the market place some stability it can count on with a tax cut for businesses, eliminating some regulations, etc., and let the free market work its wonders. It is worth a try---it's worked before---the present course is not getting the job done!Only for you did the stimulus fail. If you noticed, the Mankato and Rochester areas are actually modestly recovering. That is outstanding considering the Republicans lead our country into thge ditch over the last 8 years.

Here President Bush was predicting something worse than the Great Depression, and it never happened. Many noted economists actually asked for a far bigger stimulus, but Republicans were having a cow. There is never a guarantee our country won't slide back into a depression after the stimulus money is spent, but it would have ahppened a long time ago, if Republicans had been listened to.

Remeber, that's the same party that doesn't believe in global warming. Harry Reid knows sfar more than the writer of this post. If this writer had his way, we would have had 20% unemployment and a general economic collapse. Keynesian econoimics worked. The stimuls brought life to the economy. Tax cuts would have failed. It is consumption that is needed to prevent a depression. It still is.

It seems I remember4 a prior lack of understanding of macro-economics. I can tell it is still there.

[Bob Jentges]

Only for you did the stimulus fail. If you noticed, the Mankato and Rochester areas are actually modestly recovering....If this writer had his way, we would have had 20% unemployment and a general economic collapse.

I do not recall a single month since the "Stimulus Bill" was signed into law where the economy has gained jobs. I think there has been a net loss of jobs in the area of 3 million since the "Stimulus Bill" was signed into law. I would expect most of those people would consider it a failure too.

Good for the Mankato and Rochester areas, but I expect their statistics were included in the government jobs/unemployment statistics for the country as a whole i.e. the "big picture"!

If the staticistics that are used to calculate what is referred to as "real unemployment" are included we are very close to the 20% you cite.

If you have ever searched-out what much of the so-called stimulus money has been spent on it should be obvious why most people think, for the most part, it has been a failure. For just one example, studying the effect alcohol consumption has on the sex life of college age womens is not the kind of stimulation most serious job seekers are interested in.

I have heard that only about 60% of the stimulus money has been spent so far. If it's working so great whats holding-up spending the remainder to stiumlate the economy even more? I will take a guess---the Democrats have seen public opinion polls.

Instead Harry Reid has come up with a stimulus bill by another name i.e. "Jobs Bill", hoping that will be better accepted by the general public. But I think old Harry was at least smart enough to limit it to $15B so if it fails to do much the public will not be so upset as they are with the "Stimulus Bill". If you owned a small business would you invest $40,000.00 to add a new employee in exchange for a one time tax credit of about $3,000.00? If your answer is yes, I suggest your business acumen leaves much to be desired and bankruptcy could be just around the corner. But nothing like a name change to try to dupe the rubes A/K/A kool aid drinkers---like liberal to progressive!

Before you reply with your usual claim that I have not offerred any solutions, I refer you back to the final paragraph of my post #11. I should have included that the governments responsibility with respect to jobs and the economy is to remove the uncertanties facing business and create a business friendly enviroment.

A couple of housekeeping items before I close. First, I will address your reference to global warming, briefly, in the "Global Warming" thread soon. Second, by using the phrase "this writer" in your post most who understand English would connect that with you, the person actually writing the post, as opposed to someone else you might be trying to quote or whose opinion you might be referring to.

[Dan Conner]

I do not recall a single month since the "Stimulus Bill" was signed into law where the economy has gained jobs. I think there has been a net loss of jobs in the area of 3 million since the "Stimulus Bill" was signed into law. I would expect most of those people would consider it a failure too.

Good for the Mankato and Rochester areas, but I expect their statistics were included in the government jobs/unemployment statistics for the country as a whole i.e. the "big picture"!

If the staticistics that are used to calculate what is referred to as "real unemployment" are included we are very close to the 20% you cite.

If you have ever searched-out what much of the so-called stimulus money has been spent on it should be obvious why most people think, for the most part, it has been a failure. For just one example, studying the effect alcohol consumption has on the sex life of college age womens is not the kind of stimulation most serious job seekers are interested in.

I have heard that only about 60% of the stimulus money has been spent so far. If it's working so great whats holding-up spending the remainder to stiumlate the economy even more? I will take a guess---the Democrats have seen public opinion polls.

Instead Harry Reid has come up with a stimulus bill by another name i.e. "Jobs Bill", hoping that will be better accepted by the general public. But I think old Harry was at least smart enough to limit it to $15B so if it fails to do much the public will not be so upset as they are with the "Stimulus Bill". If you owned a small business would you invest $40,000.00 to add a new employee in exchange for a one time tax credit of about $3,000.00? If your answer is yes, I suggest your business acumen leaves much to be desired and bankruptcy could be just around the corner. But nothing like a name change to try to dupe the rubes A/K/A kool aid drinkers---like liberal to progressive!

Before you reply with your usual claim that I have not offerred any solutions, I refer you back to the final paragraph of my post #11. I should have included that the governments responsibility with respect to jobs and the economy is to remove the uncertanties facing business and create a business friendly enviroment.

A couple of housekeeping items before I close. First, I will address your reference to global warming, briefly, in the "Global Warming" thread soon. Second, by using the phrase "this writer" in your post most who understand English would connect that with you, the person actually writing the post, as opposed to someone else you might be trying to quote or whose opinion you might be referring to.I would expect the above reactionary views. It comes from a person thinking narrow-mindedly. There are lots of interpretations of "gained jobs." Considering that the writers hero, GW Bush, brought our economy to the brink of destruction, with threatened job losses greater that the Great depression (25%), it is amazing that unemployment just reached 10%. Obviously, millions of jobs were saved to avoid this cataclysic depression. However, I can understand the reactionary inability to acknowledge that.

The President, Secretary of Treasury, and economic advisors have all stated, before the stimulus was even passed, that unemployment would approach 10%. They said the recovery would a slow job recovery. In fact, they even predicted a jobless recovery for a long period of time. I guess the above writer has continued with his poor/no research. It would be nice if he would at least read the papers. His support of GW Bush could be likened to that for Herbert Hoover.

The motivations of the above writer is to have "W's" government restored, where wars and major Medicare programs are enacted while taxes are cut. Bush turned a $250 billion surplus into a trillion dollar deficit. However, the reader got his tax cuts, and that all he cares about, regardless of the damage it did to the country. It now takes gall, to blame a President who is working to dig our country out of the abyss Bush put us into. Obviously, the above writer's reactionary view clouds his ability to think objectively, or even look for the facts.

The only thing I can think of in the above screed, that I can consider a failure, is the limited ability of the writer to comprehend any kind of "big picture". economics, unemployment, etc. Besides, why would the above writer care about employment? He hates unions, anyway. At least he adores insurance companies. Look how well they have done for all of us?

The writer is at his usual, referring people to ancient posts, do doubt to many of his contradictory and ill-thought out ideas. Hopefully, in the interim, he has better studied history and learned about Rome, communism, and the development of the Constitution. Using the world's greatest empire as an illustration of failure would cause one to ask, "What do you consider a success?"

The above writer's wonderful description of the job bill was shallow and in error, like most of what he wrote. I continue to assert the writer poorly researches and suffers from too much economic ignorance. If he read about the intent of the stimulus and the process that would be used, he would have understood the economists intended to trickle the money out over a long period, to cause sustained growth. Again, this was stated on many occasions by Obama's economic advisors. I suggest that the writer spend more time listening to his government's officials, instead of Glen Beck. If he had a basic understanding of economics, he would know that immediately spending all the stimulus money would have created an enormous bubble, that would have yielded another even worse depression. Some speculate even this stimulus spending might create a bubble (although much smaller) that could bust and lead into a depression. However, doing nothing would have meant a certain depression.

The above writer's fatalistic selfish attitude would most certainly led to a depression, with no chance of recovery. Instead, our country would have reverted to a me-me society of survival of the fittest. I don't know of a country that is considered a country with that attitude, unless maybe Somalia, Congo, or other countires like that, no doubt considered successes by the above writer.

I would read the above writer as stressed by references to someone as "the writer?" I think there is a high degree of paranoia and insecurity in that writing. Seems like a person obsessed. No matter what, the above writer has every right to proceed immediately to a Great Depression, if he wishes, but he has no right to drag the rest of us to his oblivion.

[Bob Jentges]

There are lots of interpretations of "gained jobs."...The President, Secretary of Treasury, and economic advisors have all stated, before the stimulus was even passed, that unemployment would approach 10%....The writer is at his usual, referring people to ancient posts...Hopefully, in the interim, he has better studied history...Using the world's greatest empire as an illustration of failure...I would read the above writer as stressed by references to someone as "the writer?"

Your post is mostly the same old, same old so to avoid repeating myself I will only address a few items in your post.

First, when there has been a net loss of about three million jobs since the "Stimulus Bill" was passed about a year ago, promoting "gained jobs" dosen't seem to be significant to the "big picture" job/unemployment situation. "Gained jobs" is a new phrase to me in this job crisis. I believe the present Administration formerly referred to that as "saved jobs', until they were forced to admit there is no objective way to measure "saved jobs".

Second, I recall President Obama in promoting passage of the "Stimulus Bill" saying, if passed unemployment would not surpass 8%.

Third, unless you subscribe to a different definition than the commonly accepted definition of the word "ancient", I have no idea of what "ancient posts" you might be referring to.

Fourth, back in the early 60's I taught both world History and World Geography. Both included accounts of the Roman Empire. But admittedly that was a long time ago---maybe the Progressives have revised things since then.

Finally, I was just trying to help you say who you really meant by your gramatically incorrect reference to "the writer".

[Bob Jentges]

Article in today's Washington Times titled: "Income Falls 3.2% during Obama's Term".

To summerize it says only federal spending is going up; business start-ups and incomes down ($2,000 per family). Proof the government can not spend it's way to prosperity. The "Stimulus" is not working, and Keynsian economics do not work.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/13/personal-income-falls-32-during-Obamas-15-months/

[Bob Jentges]

The title "Ignorence Is Liberal Bliss" may have been written by the author of the article, or the editor of the publication, but it is based on a Zogby International survey of 4,835 respondents. Seems to be demonstrated almost daily by the majority in the U.S. Congress these days.:(

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/24/ignorence-is-liberal-bliss