Congress, new Admin. already laying plans for recovery

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDhR9U4O5NfM&refer=home

Well if Obama can get this signed on inauguration day it will go a long way toward improving consumer confidence and hopefully help turn things around.

Hopefully there will be a "honeymoon" period when republicanstry to put the country first and work togethor.

And not just be obstructionists.

It will almost take a miracle for the Senate to wind up with 60 votes.

The Dems would have to win both the Franken recount and knock off Chambliss in Gs.

And they are currently behind in both.

So unless one of the republicans sees the light and comes over, the Senate can still be a stumblingblock.

They still have not announced who will replace Obama and Hillary, but speculation is it could be Jess Jackson Jr. and Al Sharpton so if that happens we will have two good solid progressive votes.

So everyone keep your fingers crossed and just hope for a miracle in Minnesota and Georgia.

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Congress will send President-elect Barack Obama an economic stimulus package the day he takes office Jan. 20, two Democratic lawmakers said today.

Senator Charles Schumer of New York said on ABC’s “This Week” program that the package will be between five and $700 billion. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, of Maryland, said on “Fox News Sunday” that he believed the Inauguration Day goal would be met, but he declined to put a price tag on the bill.

“I think Congress will work with the president elect starting now and will have a major stimulus package on his desk by Inauguration Day,” Schumer said. “I think it has to be deep. My view it has to be between five and $700 billion.”

Obama said yesterday he aims to save or create 2.5 million jobs in his two-year plan to stimulate an economy facing a “crisis of historic proportions.”

Well Sherman, since you think that is such a great idea ........ why doesn't the Democrat controlled WV Legislature offer a $500 to $700 MILLION economic stimulus package to the businesses and/or people in West Virginia to get people working at a job that pays a living wage and the economy a hopping?

That would be easy for them to do, Shermmy, because they don't have to worry about the Republican Legislators voting it down or even stalling it in Committee.

Work with me Shermmy, convince your Democrat friends that that is a super good idea because that would stop the "brain drain" of all our youngest and finest from heading down Hillbilly Highway to look for a decent paying job.



.

Well I don't think it is likely that much progressive legislation will come out of the WV legislature because it is pretty much a one party state and not competitive politically.

The Senate has 100 votes. What is the big deal with sixty?

Well OC the Senate has adopted a rule that any Senator can continue debate as long as they want on an issue unless 60 Senators vote to cut off debate and procede with the vote.

So if the republicans have 41 votes they can pretty much obstruct progress.

One man's obstruction of progress is another mans saving the country.

Even though a stimulus is proof positive that money is better off in the hands of Americans and proves we should cut taxes, I curious where the $500 billion Obama wants for the stimulus package is supposed to come from?

Any ideas Sherman?

Well if up to me it would come from cancelling the bush tax cut for those who make over $250K, and taxing the windfall profits of the big energy companies.

Plus charging the mideast countries for the security we provide.

The Bush tax cuts, which Barrack Obama has said he will not allow to lapse and their $250K amount (your number, not mine) to half of 1% of what is being discussed. I hardly think that will make a difference.

And gas is below $2.00 a gallon. There will be no windfall profits.

The answer to the question is they will come by it the same way the did Pelosi's TARP money, borrow it from China.

The Democrats have controlled COngress for two years--why didn't they lay out a plan before now?

sodbuster wrote:Well if up to me it would come from cancelling the bush tax cut for those who make over $250K, and taxing the windfall profits of the big energy companies.

Plus charging the mideast countries for the security we provide.

Windfall profits? Whatever happened to those? I guess the oil companies, in their infinite goodness, decided to stop gouging us?

I also heard last night that Obama doesn't plan on raising ANY taxes until at least 2011. So where will the money come from to pay for the stimulus package Sherman?

Well I heard that too.

I hope they dont just print more money.

I think part of the change people voted for was a more responsible fiscal policy.

So a lot of Democrats wont be happy if that happens.

And neither will the Paulistas I dont figure.

There going to have to get it from somewhere because lord knows the only spending democrats will cut is defense.

I do have one question Sherman. You said...

Well if Obama can get this signed on inauguration day it will go a long way toward improving consumer confidence and hopefully help turn things around.

Tell me, how is the government going another $500 billion in dept going to improve consumer confidence?

For me, the more the government intervenes, the less confident I feel.

That doesn't make sense. You said, "...a lot of Democrats won't be happy if that happens. And so will the Paulistas..."

What does that mean?

Well OC I tried to edit the post.

Hopefully you can decipher it now.

I meant to say the Dems wont be happy unless the spending is offset at least partially by either taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.

And I think Ron Paul supporters might agree with us on that.

Today the so-called Paulistas are demonstrating for the end of the Federal Reserve System. After your clarification I don't understand what you believe or what you think Ron Paul's supporters believe. We're not looking for tax increases. Spending cuts, maybe...

You'll have to link to me one democrat that's said any new stimulus package or spending must be put out in conjunction with cuts or tax increases Sherman because I haven't seen one say that.

What I have seen is prominent democrats, both in and out of public office say that the best way out of this economic situation is to spend our way out. There was one joke on This Week with George Snuffleupagus yesterday who said the stimulus was only "about 7% of our GDP so it's no big deal.

You can tell yourself democrats are fiscally responsible if you want. And you might even convince yourself. The odds of you convincing anyone else on this forum are pretty much nil though.

Well I dont know enough about the Fed. Reserve to advocate ending it.

Maybe you do, but I suspect some of the protestors/demonstrators dont know any more than I do about it.

But it's still a free country, sort of.

"You'll have to link to me one democrat that's said any new stimulus package or spending must be put out in conjunction with cuts or tax increases Sherman because I haven't seen one say that."

Well Aaron dont you consider me a Democrat?

sodbuster wrote:Well Aaron dont you consider me a Democrat?

Not a traditional one, no I do not Sherman. I think you're more fitted for the Mountain party.

But that's another conversation.

In this thread, I'm speaking of prominent national democrats who either make policy or get paid to talk about those who do, neither of which group you belong to.

So can you find me ONE prominent democrat who has stated that any spending has to either be linked to cuts elsewhere or tax increases?

Barack Obama has made his intentions to do nothing to alter our current disasterous monetary policy by nominating Timothy Geithner Treasurey Secretary. He has zero credibility with Ron Paul Republicans, or members of the Constitution Party and probably about zilch with the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul advocates small federal government. He will not support more handouts and bailouts and this "Paulista" will not either. I don't know any who will, and I have a good dozen "Paulistas" I call friends and hundreds I call friendly acquaitances.

Tax cuts are wonderful, but only in conjunction with spending cuts. Geithner will continue the current course of having his buds over at the Fed print more money out of thin freaking air.

However, my opinion doesn't matter. Sherm says I'm an obstructionist.

I'm still waiting on that one prominent democrat Sherman. I know it's hard but for you to make such a statment, I'm sure you had someone in mind, right!!!

"I hope they dont just print more money.

I think part of the change people voted for was a more responsible fiscal policy.

So a lot of Democrats wont be happy if that happens.

And neither will the Paulistas I dont figure."

Now Aaron I dont know how that got switched from us Democrat voters to your "prominent" democrats.

Then show me where the majority of democrats are fiscally responsible.

Hell, it doesn't have to be a majority. I'd settle for 25% or so. Thing is, I don't think you can find them.

I stand by my statement that a lot of Democrats will be disappointed.

I gotta go and probly wont back on for a few days.

Just to let you know so you wont be talking bad about me while I am not here to answer ok.