A Better Deal, But Not a New 'New Deal'

Prodded by President Obama, leaders of the House and Senate agreed Wednesday afternoon to a new version of the stimulus package that is supposed to jumpstart a sputtering economy.

The agreement restored some of the cuts to school construction and state aids that were made when Senate Democrats capitulated to Republican demands for sharp cuts in actual stimulus spending. It also eliminates some of the tax giveaways inserted by GOP senators, which ran the cost of the Senate bill up to $838 billion.

Still, the new $789 billion measure is a disappointing proposal compared with the with the $819 billion House plan.

The price tags are not the issue.

It all comes down to what the money is spent on.

This remains a compromise agreement that is packed with ill-considered Republican tax schemes.

The latest variation on the stimulus -- which most Americans imagine as a job-creation measure -- includes just $150 billion in spending for infrastructure projects, including transportation initiatives.

That's less than one-fifth of the overall package.

While there is more money for ailing state governments -- which also put people to work -- the allocation has been slashed to $35 billion less than had been proposed by the House.

Some school construction money has been restored, but the latest version of the bill lacks $16 billion that had been proposed for that purpose.

Additionally, according to the New York Times, it "sharply curtailed health care subsidies for the unemployed."

The frankest assessment of the measure as it now stands comes from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who says: "I am not happy with it. You are not looking at a happy camper. I mean, they took a lot of stuff out of education. They took it out of health, school construction and they put it more into tax issues."

The Iowa Democrat notes that nine percent of the stimulus bill is now committed to restructuring the alternative minimum tax, a Republican priority that was to be dealt with later this year in a tax bill.

"Why is it in there?" Harkin asked. "It has nothing to do with stimulus. It has nothing to do with recovery. This makes no sense whatsoever."

Harkin's right. Starving stimulus spending in order to pay for tax schemes -- especially when the issues at hand were going to be addressed in short order -- is madness in the midst of an economic crisis.

But that's what you get when too much emphasis is placed on false "bipartisanship" and empty "compromising" at a point when bold leadership and action are needed.

The story of the stimulus fight is not quite finished. This bill will have to make it through the House and Senate one more time.

Most Republicans are still likely to oppose this measure, even though they have defined it to a far greater extent than their minority status would have predicted.

A few progressive Democrats, who fear that this compromise plan is too stingy and misguided to restart the economy, might voice objections as well.

That said, the agreement reached today very probably approximates the legislation that will be signed in short order by President Obama.

If this proves to be the case, America will get a better deal than the Senate was willing to provide. But it won't get the new "New Deal" that Democrats in the House -- led by Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey -- tried to deliver.

If it works, everyone will take credit.

If it fails, the blame will rest with Republicans who demanded compromises and Democrats who agreed to them.

Comments (58)

1. its too stingy and too tainted by the supposedly defeated opposition.

   sickening.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:08pm

2. its too stingy and too tainted by the supposedly defeated opposition.

   sickening.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

3. dammit! sorry...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:09pm

4. Look, as much as the Right claims and the Hard Left hopes....

   a broad coalition still exists in the Congress running the gamut from Republican die-hards into the dreaded "blue dog" Democrats.

   And this bill represents the fact that those folks have SOME sway. When Obama wins a "Reagan-1984" sweep and the Senate is filibuster-free....then the purists MIGHT get more of what they want.

   But this is still a helluva lot better than what you'd get under McCain...and monumentally better than what you'd get if the Repubs control either or BOTH Houses.

   Oh and there's still the normal appropriations bill to write....????

   Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:14pm

5. Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   when did YOU become the optimist and I the cynic?

   refreshing nonetheless...

   rough day i suppose...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:17pm

6. "Starving stimulus spending in order to pay for tax schemes --"

   My God......there is NO stimulus ...

   Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 4:20pm

7. Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:08pm

   Stingy, ibble? $1.1 trillion (that's what the $800 billion is, including borrowing costs) is too STINGY???

   A logical question for your tragically, apparently studiously ignorant mind...

   If $1.1 trillion is not enough, would $10 trillion be enough? Would it not, in your world, be much better? If not, why not? If tax cuts are FAR LESS effective than government programs in terms of 'multipliers', would we not be better off if the government ran everything, owned everything, and confiscated everyone's incomes because, after all, government spending is much more efficient that people spending their own money? Do any of these questions get through to you?

   Posted by pontificus at 02/11/2009 @ 4:23pm

8. Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:17pm

   Well, hope things get better...which is different from our friends on the Right, huh?

   BTW, think PONTI and the rest of the "fiscal conservatives" cared about spending $650 Billion IN DEBT...

   to install a friendly-to-Iran government in Baghdad and kill 4100+ GIs?

   Or would worry if Dubya (Or McCain) asked for more for those noble goals?

   Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:26pm

9. If all it takes is spending massive amounts of phoney, borrowed money, then let's have Congress let all Americans spend thousands beyond what is in their bank accounts.

   the economy will flourish and the recession will be a distant memory.

   Seems like a fair and equitable proposal.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:38pm

10. Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:38pm

    So are you really our ol' Preacher Man...lvlib?

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:41pm

11. So far our new President gets a "C" for his performance. Passable in normal times. But the economic crisis demands an "A."

    Posted by fragen at 02/11/2009 @ 4:48pm

12. Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    they seem to have 0 problem with a needless, blood and bling draining, land war in asia, do they?

    absolutely fine with that, and with the fact that their guys gutted federal revenue by gutting taxes on thw wealthy...

    oh wait! allow me to anticipate...

    "blah blah blah blah the wealthy ALWAYS invest their extra tax free buzillions back into the blah blah so no taxes! yay!!!"

    ----------------------------------------

    yeah, PONTI, i think we should have spent twice as much (or at LEAST ASKED for twice as much) and that a big 'ol chunk be used to REBUILD THE GODDAMNED COUNTRY!!!!

    modernise and repair and stimulate local business, especially cutting edge manufacturing, redesign our cities, ensure reasonable healthcare for all...

    LOTS

    50-70% INVESTMENT, the rest relief...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:49pm

13. Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:38pm

    So are you really our ol' Preacher Man...lvlib?

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 4:41pm

    yes; don't know what I got booted for. I've never used an expletive...

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

14. i also think the gov should spend money on advertising and social outreach to teach people how to be adults again.

    the moral breakdown of the nation over the last 30 to 40 years has taken its toll, leaving millions of dysfunctional adults in many ways.

    spending on mental health and community outreach would be a very wise investment.

    i'm honestly not so hopeful about more spending on education beyond the abovementioned idea...people need to have the hope for jobs and opportunity in order to spur their kids to do well in school, lest what's the point if opportunity is sparse?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

15. I was out of town at a corporate training for agency owners; came back and noticed that no one was responding to my posts.

    I figured either you all decided to ignore me or I got booted...or some other strange brew.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:58pm

16. Posted by fragen at 02/11/2009 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well said. We can compromise and be happy with what we got another time. Urgent times call for much more urgent measures.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 4:59pm

17. I figured either you all decided to ignore me or I got booted...or some other strange brew.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    exact same thimg happened to me. back when i became "dexter666"...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:01pm

18. Now that many people have their own personal computers with color printers, why not just let everybody print their own money, as much as they want, all of it legal tender?

    For some consistency, the government should make available image files of all the various denominations. It would be OK to print on only one side of the page, otherwise people would have to run each piece of currency through their printers twice.

    And that would slow things down anyway - with allowing money to have printing only on one side, people could print out as much money as they want as fast as they want.

    All businesses would of course have to honor the money. But businesses would not run out of cash, how could they?

    Because they could print all of the money they want as well.

    If people did not have a personal computer then the government should supply each and every person a PC and printer and ink and paper for free.

    But how would the government come up with the funds to buy all this equipment?

    Simple. Government agencies could print all the money they wanted as well.

    Also, there would be price ceilings on all commodities, so the rich business owners could not "shaft" or "exploit" the people and the workers.

    One thing though, rich wealthy people (who got that way by expoiting the workers or winning life's lottery) would not be able to print any money, only the workers and the people and the government and Barack Obama would be able to.

    And all of the workers and the victims and the oppressed would pay no tax, only wealthy people, so things would be fair.

    Now that the economic problems are solved, President Obama can focus on other things, such as surrender in Iraq, tearing apart the Patriot Act, letting terrorists out of Gitmo, etc.

    Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 5:04pm

19. i also think the gov should spend money on advertising and social outreach to teach people how to be adults again.

    the moral breakdown of the nation over the last 30 to 40 years has taken its toll, leaving millions of dysfunctional adults in many ways.

    spending on mental health and community outreach would be a very wise investment.

    i'm honestly not so hopeful about more spending on education beyond the abovementioned idea...people need to have the hope for jobs and opportunity in order to spur their kids to do well in school, lest what's the point if opportunity is sparse?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

    As you know, I'm not big on public education. I think we need to re-establish more extensive use of trade schools beginning around age 15 or 16. they could include the necessary general education requirements for a HS diploma while learning a genuine trade skill.

    Not everyone is meant to go to college and we seriously lack skilled people in this country.

    And I agree that someone needs to start teaching more life skills..young people who cannot balance a checkbook, fill out a credit application, and lack any sense of personal responsibility or pride in applying for positions. Sometimes when I get through interviewing someone, I am at a total loss as to what they thought would impress me that they were serious about a profession.

    I'd love to hire more people if I could find enough who were serious about a career. You'd think a lifetime 6 figure income by the second year would be attractive and worthwhile enough to make a serious effort.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

20. Apparently Pelosi is not completely supportive: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/stimulus-deal-obama-team_n_1659 12.html

    Posted by syfriendly at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

21. modernise and repair and stimulate local business, especially cutting edge manufacturing, redesign our cities, ensure reasonable healthcare for all...

    LOTS

    50-70% INVESTMENT, the rest relief...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 4:49pm

    You know what I find amazing through all of this? Not one representative including Obama has had the intestinal fortitude to suggest that we cut military spending nor close some of our overseas bases that cost a friggin fortune to operate.

    What do we get from these bases? Nothing. Now, overseas businesses have an American presence so they can play hardball, but that doesn't help Joe 6 pack back here.

    What have we gotten from the billions spent on the pentagon? Wasted money. Sure a few gadgets filter down through the research and end up being used in the civilian market like microwave ovens and technology like that, but we could be kicking the crap out of everyone in the world if we invested our money into useable products insteads of God Damned weapons and more weapons to sell to countries like Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Ukraine and the list goes on and on.

    Our leaders are bought and paid for. None of them will challenge the powers that are screwing this country.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

22. Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    oh YOU again...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

23. It's interesting that the best arguments against the stimulus spending seem to be this absolutist, cold-war, red-scare rhetoric that it starts a slippery slope to totalitarian, goose-stepping, furry hat wearing, gulag living, borst-sipping, freedom hating.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:07pm

24. yes; don't know what I got booted for. I've never used an expletive...

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

    Same deal with my Longhorn version!

    I think these Libs in the `governing' role, have thinner skins than pre-Nov. 4th! `Fairness Doctrine' and all....LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 02/11/2009 @ 5:08pm

25. Posted by Happy at 02/11/2009 @ 5:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you controlls make the place fun.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:09pm

26. Posted by sjchermak at 02/11/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I think you may have put a little too much effort into that one. It's not that I don't get it, I think you need to reconsider the length of your jokes.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:12pm

27. This is Jesus W. Taxcut's legacy. Jesus Lives! Eight More Years! I'll bet McCain's smiling now. Smiling so much that his goiter is throbbing. Oh well, there goes the change we were told to believe in.

    Posted by jazzfan at 02/11/2009 @ 5:17pm

28. It's interesting that the best arguments against the stimulus spending seem to be this absolutist, cold-war, red-scare rhetoric that it starts a slippery slope to totalitarian, goose-stepping, furry hat wearing, gulag living, borst-sipping, freedom hating.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:07pm

    AKA the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:18pm

29. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm

    I think the problem isn't what our long-standing history of military spending hasn't done for us, it's what it has done that's the problem. Forget all this terrorism stuff for a minute-- our military "interventionism" is primarily economically motivated. We come in, we kick ass, we dial in the system to our companies' preferences-- we make a "friendly business climate" for investors. Who pays? The people, the inhabitants, you know, the people we liberate by de-regulating, privatizing, de-unionizing-- all with NO VASELINE! Who gains? We do. Our companies. Our economy. Eventually, our people. Military spending is a systemic cornerstone of our economy.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:23pm

30. Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    really? now?

    but yeah...i got 16 year olds whose grandmoms are like 48, you know? multiple generations of dysfunctional springer people, some of whom may have been that way for a century, but many of whom are the direct results of the moral breakdown of the country.

    where you and i disagree on religion is doctrine, not need for public morality, nor faith that a pack of undereducated, pop culture poisoned, jay walking, marching morons can "get there" without some form of magical belief...

    how cynical we conservatives are, larry...

    i belong to a minority faith and therefore find ideas of seperation of church and state comforting. much like you, right?

    but i think that if one takes all the great moral religions and keeps what they all have in common, throw out the crap they disagree upon...we end up with a pretty solid set of reccomendations for how to live our lives, both individually, and collectively.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:23pm

31. Antisocial and ibble,

    Same happened to jomamma. No explanation, just disappeared.

    I think Mask was dumpe,d too.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 5:24pm

32. AKA the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 5:18pm

    Thank you for helping me make my point!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:25pm

33. There used to be some reasonably intelligent Republicans, But since the late 1970s, it has been down hill. There may be a few issues, that you might come to a meeting of the minds, but these people are totally incompetent.Democrats are equally stupid if they imitate their failed polices.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/11/2009 @ 5:32pm

34. Posted by YourJomamma at 02/11/2009 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    they get you controlls all the time. i think they have fun. or its some kind of automated deal where "x" number of "warn this person's" leads to

    "auto-ban"

    you should try that next time, "controll"

    lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:34pm

35. yes; don't know what I got booted for. I've never used an expletive... Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

    fuck you ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 5:34pm

36. yes; don't know what I got booted for. I've never used an expletive... Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

    although i must say your present moniker is more fitting!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 5:35pm

37. MATTMAN!

    uh, hi.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 5:36pm

38. fuck you ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    jeez frosty!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2009 @ 5:39pm

39. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 5:36pm

    Howdy Ho! Wait, I'm not calling you a ho...that was my "Mr. Hankey". I'm humbled to have been missed. Good to hear from y'all.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:40pm

40. Posted by jazzfan at 02/11/2009 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I can't wait to say "Jesus W. Taxcut" to somebody. Only I'm going to use it as an obscentity, as in: "Jesus W. Taxcut!! Will you look where you're going??"

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:46pm

41. Posted by antisocialist at 02/11/2009 @ 4:56pm

    Yep...reason for Maskbeta and Maskdelta...bugged login.

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 5:56pm

42. Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 5:40pm

    MM, where you u been?

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 6:02pm

43. ibbs!

    you took the lord's name in vain!

    larry knows i mean him no ill will.

    anyhoo,

    back to normal.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2009 @ 6:04pm

44. Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 6:02pm

    Mask, buddy, I've been real busy with a bunch of stuff. Hows life?

    I've gotta go home. We'll all talk later...

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 6:30pm

45. Obamanation and the Undemocrats have turned back the clock to mid 20th century! Their porkulus bill is the vehicle;

    Both the Senate and House stimulus bills are Trojan horses that deliberately exploit anxiety about the current recession to conceal their destruction of the foundation of welfare reform and a massive expansion of the welfare system. Since its enactment in the mid-1990s, such reform has proven to be a very successful policy that dramatically reduced welfare dependency and child poverty. The fact that the stimulus proponents seek to conceal the bill's massive permanent changes in welfare is a clear indication that they understand how unpopular these changes would be if the public became aware of them. Far from an exercise in "unprecedented transparency"--as President Obama claims--the stimulus bills are an example of unprecedented deception.

    No wonder they did not want the Republicans and the taxpaying citizens to see this gigantic irresponsible debacle Obamanation LIES about the nation needing!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/11/2009 @ 6:39pm

46. nice plagiarism there, comanche. pulled from the heritage website, here's the link. pretty sad. pretty sad.

    but not surprising:

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm

    just page down. it's the last paragraph or so....

    Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 8:04pm

47. you know, comanche, if you wanna pretend like you know something, make sure readers don't have access to a little thing (and a san francisco thing) called....'

    "the google"

    Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2009 @ 8:05pm

48. This bill sucks.

    Russ, Tammy and Herb in Wisconsin? Vote it down!

    Posted by neaguy at 02/11/2009 @ 8:13pm

49. This bill sucks.

    Russ, Tammy and Herb in Wisconsin? Vote it down!

    Posted by neaguy at 02/11/2009 @ 8:13pm

50. Posted by MATTMAN at 02/11/2009 @ 6:30pm

    Got a cold....kid's got pink eye....catching grief here from the Left and Right...

    you know...the usual.

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 8:22pm

51. Posted by comancheamerican at 02/11/2009 @ 6:39pm

    "mid 20th Century"?....the Eisenhower Administration?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 02/11/2009 @ 8:24pm

52. "If tax cuts are FAR LESS effective than government programs in terms of 'multipliers', would we not be better off if the government ran everything, owned everything, and confiscated everyone's incomes because, after all, government spending is much more efficient that people spending their own money?"--Pontificus

    Ah, the classic mindset of a simpleton. It is either a or b. There are no gray areas, no other options. Government programs must mean government ownership, and government, despite our democratic institutions, never has any relationship to We the People.

    Well, at least your significant other probably has an easy time cooking for you.

    Posted by onthehelm at 02/11/2009 @ 10:09pm

53. The Senate Republicans moved in their best interest. It may be cynical, but it's a win-win situation for them. They get their tax cut measures included in the Stimulus bill, and, if it works, they credit the tax cuts. If it fails they say that they opposed the bill.

    Also...If it fails.... the GOP will be back in power, and

    ....We will become a nation of hobos and the Republicans can deal with lobyists from the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

    Posted by koroviev at 02/12/2009 @ 01:57am

54. Not allowing the Repubs to filibuster the stimulus bill was a mistake. After they lost that (video of GOP Senators reading from a phone book to block a bill that would help their own constituents---Obama would have had a field day), we would be having a lot less trouble with the shrinking remnant of the far right.

    Posted by SK9 at 02/12/2009 @ 11:59am

55. I listened to the cables this morning and kept hearing the same platitudes from voodoo Reagan and raising tides Clinton with echos from that great economics architect Alan Greenspan. We keep hearing the FDR, Great Depression Mantra. This isn't anything like "The Great Depression". Buddy can you spare a dime is going on deaf ears because we have shipped all our dimes to China. I remember the tail end of the great depression and we could borrow from each other. We also had all the industry and skills still in country. Now all we have are people who can make beds and be greeters at Walmart. We have also borrowed our credit card limits from China and they don't like us very much. There has to be some irony here. We owe our future to a Marxist economy and a bunch of gated community billionaires who don't seem to give a !@#$. 10 % of us own 80 % of the countries wealth. There are real people behind the numbers of millions who don't have jobs. I still hear those from the party of gluttony still spouting, more tax cuts for the wealthy. Have these people all been eating lead?

    Posted by julien38 at 02/12/2009 @ 12:58pm

56. Must disagree with Nichols. If this fails, the Republicans will say I told you so. This has been their strategy for years. They underfund socially progressive programs and then, when they don't work, say socially progresssive programs are worthless. This has a name---it is called SABOTAGE. Obama is a likeable guy who has a good heart, I think---but cojones? Not yet.

    Posted by Buck18 at 02/12/2009 @ 1:35pm

57. Why are the Dems even considering more tax cuts requested by the Repubs and cutting money for schools, for health care? Is insanity catchy, is insanity a fatal virus?

    How much empirical evidence does one need to figure out tax cuts for the elites have landed us in this Sh*t hole... oh, oh, I'm sorry, congress and senate are the elites. If the Repubs want to continue whoreshipping Reagan as a deity, he is on a postage stamp so they can continue to lick his a**. I for one am not buying, but thanks anyway.

    This is the epitome of ridiculousness, to consider cutting taxes for the elites, which doesn't work, and throwing out some of the more socially progressive programs for education, schools and health care.

    Why are people so afraid of democratic socialism? I like the Denmark model myself, also UK, France, Sweden, Holland, Canada, where they place a greater value on their citizens than the US, offering them a social safety net, medical coverage, free education... ummm, now there is food for thought, after college without $100-K debt.

    I am in a quandary as to why we are still bailing out banks, financials and insurance companies? Why did they remove the compensation cap? Did the Repubs threaten to filibuster? Go ahead, stay up all night for a few weeks.

    I'm old so I can say with some authority that we do not need banks. And ILLEGALS certainly don't use insurance companies. We the People could start an entire secondary market economy, using cash and barter. It would be a little different than we are used to, but it works-- we may end up there anyway. Have courage, explore the possibilities, stop being so afraid of everything, different is not necessarily a bad thing.

    Just a View from My trailer Park. Thank you. MJ Richards

    Posted by mcjorich at 02/12/2009 @ 4:38pm

58. The attempt by Congress to "bail-out" Wall Street is like trying to bail out the sinking Titanic. The problem is too big and too top-heavy. It won't work. A REAL bail-out for the short term should be geared to those in financial need, not to those who already have far more than they need and who have created the current problem. We need a stimulus package that will work.

    Here's my formula for the kind of "bail-out" that would provide the economic stimulus we need in the short term: The federal government gives $1 million dollars to every U.S. registered voter whose income is less than $100,000 per year. Tax free. No strings attached. I've seen estimates that there are about 170 million registered voters in the U.S. Not all have incomes under $100,000 per year. So the total cost should, be under $200 million. That's far less than the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars the present bail-outs of the banks and corporations will cost. And it would help those who need it most. What would they do with the money? It's a safe bet that they would spend most of it, which would give the economy the boost economists [and Pres. Obama] tell us is needed.

    A large amount of the money would be spent and most of it would be spent in this country rather than overseas. It would be spent on paying off mortgages, purchasing homes and automobiles, paying off medical and other bills, for example. Most economists tell us that the stimulus needed most to solve the country's economic crisis is to get money circulating. In other words, to increase spending by the American people. Spending IS stimulus as President Obama told us recently. This grant of 1 million tax-free dollars to low and middle income Americans would be an ec

    Posted by bandz at 02/13/2009 @ 6:01pm