There's a reason it's called a stimulus package.

*sigh*

I... I don't even know where to begin with this.

I feel stimulated already!

Now that I am fully fecked, I don't need to go to bars and pick up women.

Anyone who writes an article about the stimulus package should be required by law to sit down and read the entire thing. I have, unfortunately. There is way more good than bad in that bill, and it's set up through strict accountability guidelines, detailing exactly how much can be spent on administration and outlining "use it or lose it" rules, where you must hit the ground running with an effective program, or they take your funds and give them to someone who will.

There are ideological problems one can have with the bill (like lowered taxes versus government borrowing and spending) but overall, this is a pretty incredible stimulus package for how precisely the funds are allocated. Overall there is very little pork. I don't know if it will work to bring us out of a recession, since I tend to fall on the "It's like trying to control the tide" side, but if we haven't gone bankrupt as a country in the next twenty years, our infrastructure is going to be in great shape.

And that will probably be due in large part to this bill.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: There is way more good than bad in that bill

That doesn't mean that we can't criticize the "bad" in the bill. I see the STD prevention portion as a needless giveaway that does nothing to stimulate the economy. And Pelosi's defense of it was her personal Sarah Palin moment.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Anyone who writes an article about the stimulus package should be required by law to sit down and read the entire thing. I have, unfortunately. There is way more good than bad in that bill, and it's set up through strict accountability guidelines, detailing exactly how much can be spent on administration and outlining "use it or lose it" rules, where you must hit the ground running with an effective program, or they take your funds and give them to someone who will.

There are ideological problems one can have with the bill (like lowered taxes versus government borrowing and spending) but overall, this is a pretty incredible stimulus package for how precisely the funds are allocated. Overall there is very little pork. I don't know if it will work to bring us out of a recession, since I tend to fall on the "It's like trying to control the tide" side, but if we haven't gone bankrupt as a country in the next twenty years, our infrastructure is going to be in great shape.

And that will probably be due in large part to this bill.

Hey wait a second all the other threads claim this puppy could only be more smelling of pork if somehow Kermits finger was part of it.



/

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: There is way more good than bad in that bill

That doesn't mean that we can't criticize the "bad" in the bill. I see the STD prevention portion as a needless giveaway that does nothing to stimulate the economy. And Pelosi's defense of it was her personal Sarah Palin moment.

Well, I dont know, if they legalized prostitution then it would apply.

\ A man can dream.

I will absolutely concede it doesn't belong in a stimulus package but why is preventative medicine such a terrible and scary thing to the right?

It does lower costs. I thought you guys were all about less spending.

/did not read the garbage article

I think it is stupid of Nancy to attach this to the stimulus bill, especially with a president working his ass off to show bipartisanship.

I don't know how much it will stimulate the economy, but STD prevention will save states money if it reduces STDs. This is because it is the state's health departments usually bear the brunt of the costs treating STDs. Federal funding for many programs like this were cut off in the past 8 years due to the Republican ideology of "state rights". This has hurt the budget of many states and made the effects of the economic recession. This is more of a long-term solution to the issue than immediate stimulus.

Of course long-term planning and guarenteeing the stimulus takes root for long term prosperity is needed. That is why the last round of stimulus checks didn't work. Once the extra money was spent, the economy was still cash strapped.

I wouldn't feck Mark Steyn for $1 trillion dollars.

FTFA:

Makes a lot of sense. If we have more STD prevention, it will be safer for loose women to go into bars and pick up feckless men, thus stimulating the critical beer and nuts and jukebox industries. To do this, we need trillion-dollar deficits, which our children and grandchildren will have to pay off, but, with sufficient investment in prevention measures, there won't be any children or grandchildren, so there's that problem solved.

There is just...so much stupid. This sounds like it was written by my 90 year old fundie grandmother--what twenty-first century man uses the phrase "loose women"? Lock your doors tonight, son! The loose women are coming to town, and only the men with fecks can fend them off!

And really, why would you want careless STD-transmitting idiots to have children?!

What I find odd is that last week Obama told Democrats to take it out, but it's back in now.

I'm sure if the Dems tried to push a bill on STD prevention & better sex-ed in schools on its own, it would never pass, so I can understand them trying to sneak it in here. I don't like that it's in the package, but something's got to be done about 8 years of abstinence-only education and rising STD cases.

However, Pelosi trying to defend that it in any way can stimulate the economy (other than preventing pregnancies that would add more to the population or cut down on related medical expenses from STD treatments, I guess) was just ridiculous.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: Anyone who writes an article about the stimulus package should be required by law to sit down and read the entire thing. I have, unfortunately. There is way more good than bad in that bill

You read it? Really? Did you notice the part about where, for example, only US steel can be purchased with the stimulus?

Or did you actually read it and you actually think protectionism is the way to get out of a failing global economy? Beause I'm pretty sure that's been tried before.

/Seriously, they're about to tear up NAFTA and set off a chain reaction of retaliatory protectionist tariffs and then we're all screwed

nomsumpisces: And really, why would you want careless STD-transmitting idiots to have children?!


The question isn't whether STD prevention makes sense. The question is whether STD prevention belongs in the stimulus package bill. Which it doesn't. Increasing funding for scientific research is also a good idea, but that doesn't belong in the stimulus package either.

Actually, I take that back. Increasing funding for scientific research would help me pay my bills. What's Pelosi's phone number?

I don't care how good the intentions are. The continual practice of tacking unrelated legislation onto legislation just because some powerful legislator wants it is a toxic practice, and needs to be eliminated on general principles.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: That doesn't mean that we can't criticize the "bad" in the bill. I see the STD prevention portion as a needless giveaway that does nothing to stimulate the economy. And Pelosi's defense of it was her personal Sarah Palin moment.

The STD portion is wrapped inside a larger health initiative to modernize the technological networks involved, promote immunizations, protect against flu pandemics, and other preventative health measures like smoking cessation. In a strictly monetary sense, these aren't really stimulating the needy sectors of the economy, but they will pay dividends down the road as an investment in health.

The reason why it's in the bill is because preventative measures are always going to be cheaper than the alternative. $400m for preventing welfare babies or STDs has the potential to save billions in both government and personal funds years down the line.

jso2897: I don't care how good the intentions are. The continual practice of tacking unrelated legislation onto legislation just because some powerful legislator wants it is a toxic practice, and needs to be eliminated on general principles.

THIS

We need a line item veto for stuff like this.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: In a strictly monetary sense, these aren't really stimulating the needy sectors of the economy, but they will pay dividends down the road as an investment in health.

The reason why it's in the bill is because preventative measures are always going to be cheaper than the alternative. $400m for preventing welfare babies or STDs has the potential to save billions in both government and personal funds years down the line.

It's a persuasive argument, but I think the truth is a little closer to:

brigid_fitch: I'm sure if the Dems tried to push a bill on STD prevention & better sex-ed in schools on its own, it would never pass, so I can understand them trying to sneak it in here.

It can't pass on its own, so it is given a "it'll save you money" spin and added to this bill, which will most likely pass in some form. You can reverse-engineer a money-saving reason for just about anything.

I'm not saying STD prevention is wrong, I just don't think it belongs in a bill which is supposed to be a targeted spending of federal dollars with the explicit goal of stimulating the economy.

Maneck: You read it? Really? Did you notice the part about where, for example, only US steel can be purchased with the stimulus?

There are provisions for the use of U.S. steel. I might not be remembering it exactly right, but the gist of the steel thing is that you must use American steel unless doing so would raise the cost of the project by more than 25%, not enough is available, or doing so would impede the project in some meaningful way. I don't know what the going rate of Chinese and American steel is, so I'm not sure whether those are large enough loopholes to avoid the protectionism.

LouDobbsAwaaaay:
The question isn't whether STD prevention makes sense. The question is whether STD prevention belongs in the stimulus package bill. Which it doesn't.

Fair enough. But the writer really went full-Palin trying to argue against it.

heavymetal: We need a line item veto for stuff like this.

As someone who lives in a state with the line-item veto, I don't think the line-item veto is ever a good idea. Thompson used to strike parts of words to create new words. It leads to final versions of bills that look nothing like what they were intended for.

Here is a link to an article that links to the HB and also links to summaries that look like they were written by a marketing firm below the doc viewer thingy:

huffingtonpost (new window)

If it passes I certainly hope it doesn't hurt us and if it helps then great, but even if it did and things get worse, people still probably won't realize you can't control an economy and even the best intentions in trying to do so often backfire.

Saying there's accountability and saying "we'll spend X billion dollars to update healthcare technology to prevent medical mistakes" sure sounds nice, but it ignores core problems.

I like the parts about healthcare privacy BTW.

Let's make a deal on STD prevention. All the supporters in Congress and all the private citizens who endorse it have to make predictions on how much it will save in future spending and submit their names. Every dollar spent over that amount has to be billed to the supporters of the provision? Deal?

LouDobbsAwaaaay: heavymetal: We need a line item veto for stuff like this.

As someone who lives in a state with the line-item veto, I don't think the line-item veto is ever a good idea. Thompson used to strike parts of words to create new words. It leads to final versions of bills that look nothing like what they were intended for.

I hear you, that reminds me of Bush's "signing statements". Maybe put a requirement in the rules of the line item veto to where it can only be used to strike complete riders on bills they are attached to and not just parts or words? Just a thought.

gothelder: Hey wait a second all the other threads claim this puppy could only be more smelling of pork if somehow Kermits finger was part of it.

All of the funds are pretty strictly marked for specific projects with specific goals, and your funding can be yanked if the committee overseeing your specific operation finds you in violation of them. If you happen to be a female black veteran running a company that specializes in new construction and renovations of existing buildings to green and energy efficient standards, you'll find a lot to like in the bill, but I wouldn't exactly call it pork.

The bill reads like a New Deal 2.0 focused on reinventing American infrastructure with an eye towards the future: tech, energy, transportation; construction of said tech, energy, and transportation.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Kierkegaard's Pseudonym:

I'm not saying STD prevention is wrong, I just don't think it belongs in a bill which is supposed to be a targeted spending of federal dollars with the explicit goal of stimulating the economy.


I have to agree. This does not need to be the "lets make up for the last 8 years" bill. They can do that later.

Ok, I will start with an honest admission, I think most of these "stimulus" bills are crap.

I have read a lot of the line items in this bill, and unless the injection of cash is a immediate then there will be no stimulus to the economy. That being said these bills usually fail.

the GWP plan to improve the economy.

1. Auto Companies. Start a new bidding process and replace the vehicles that were practically destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will give a cash injection to the Auto companies and improve our operational readiness.

2. Investment. Allow investors access to the courts for defrauded investors. This will improve overall confidence while putting in place a positive long term regulation. Not one that harms business, but one that aids in stopping unscrupulous crooks.

3. Energy. Open areas for drilling, and explore alternate fuels for Military and Government vehicles. These contracts are too lucrative for companies to ignore so by looking at alternative fuels for our Federal government fleet we will spur investment without interfering in the market place.

4. Start looking at all government programs. If they do not work end them. Period. Welfare....oh it encourages people to not work. Here is 2 years left of payments, and 2 years of education. Gain some skills. At the end of those 2 years the top 15 percent(as judged by GPA) get 2 more years for their bachelors. This will allow for people to get off, and save the government money.

5. Legalize Drugs. Does anyone here think that any of these producers of illicit drugs can compete with ADM or Pfizer? Between the increase in tax revenue and the lowering of crime in inner cities this will be a major boon to the economy nationally and locally.

6. Revamp our tax system. Our tax system should have a simple goal. Fund our government with as little impact on the economy as possible. It should not be used to reward or punish behavior. It should not be used to accumulate power. It should not be changed every year to benefit some but not others.

7. GTFO of Iraq.

I am willing to debate but, these seem to be common sense as long as you are not a politician.

nomsumpisces: But the writer really went full-Palin

I snorted.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: heavymetal: We need a line item veto for stuff like this.

As someone who lives in a state with the line-item veto, I don't think the line-item veto is ever a good idea. Thompson used to strike parts of words to create new words. It leads to final versions of bills that look nothing like what they were intended for.

That shiat was hilarious. And horrifyingly asinine.

heavymetal: LouDobbsAwaaaay: heavymetal: We need a line item veto for stuff like this.

As someone who lives in a state with the line-item veto, I don't think the line-item veto is ever a good idea. Thompson used to strike parts of words to create new words. It leads to final versions of bills that look nothing like what they were intended for.

I hear you, that reminds me of Bush's "signing statements". Maybe put a requirement in the rules of the line item veto to where it can only be used to strike complete riders on bills they are attached to and not just parts or words? Just a thought.

I was going to say something to this effect but you have done it well enough for anyone.


/Fark 9ui11ani.

And there's something wrong with this? A bill that will create more promiscuity?

Awesome.

heavymetal: I think it is stupid of Nancy to attach this to the stimulus bill, especially with a president working his ass off to show bipartisanship.

Or, it could be very clever. Put some visible provisos in there that the Dems are quite willing to sacrifice in conference committee ("spirit of bipartisanship" and all). Then, when the House GOP still votes against it unanimously, they'll look more obstructionist than ever.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm not saying STD prevention is wrong, I just don't think it belongs in a bill which is supposed to be a targeted spending of federal dollars with the explicit goal of stimulating the economy.

Should it technically be in there? Probably not.

But very little money (comparatively) is being spent on programs such as these. Something like less than half of one percent of the total funds are going to these borderline projects like condoms, Nicorette, and arts funding. So it annoys me when I see people like the author of that article railing against the entire bill because of one or two provisions that make up next to nothing in the overall budget.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm not saying STD prevention is wrong, I just don't think it belongs in a bill which is supposed to be a targeted spending of federal dollars with the explicit goal of stimulating the economy.

Should it technically be in there? Probably not.

But very little money (comparatively) is being spent on programs such as these. Something like less than half of one percent of the total funds are going to these borderline projects like condoms, Nicorette, and arts funding. So it annoys me when I see people like the author of that article railing against the entire bill because of one or two provisions that make up next to nothing in the overall budget.

We as a nation have to start taking stands against this crap on principle. You and I may disagree on a lot, but surely it is a good thing to be able to tell what a bill is by its name. Is it to much to want honesty in our politicians.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm not saying STD prevention is wrong, I just don't think it belongs in a bill which is supposed to be a targeted spending of federal dollars with the explicit goal of stimulating the economy.

Should it technically be in there? Probably not.

But very little money (comparatively) is being spent on programs such as these. Something like less than half of one percent of the total funds are going to these borderline projects like condoms, Nicorette, and arts funding. So it annoys me when I see people like the author of that article railing against the entire bill because of one or two provisions that make up next to nothing in the overall budget.

You understand that even 1 cent is too much. This is what happens in every appropriations bill and it adds up. It's done so politicians can bribe their constituents/donors.

There are also other provisions than just the STD prevention (which you can't even say works, as people will always have sex). Things such as "300 million to upgrade government cars." is asinine in a Stimulus bill. This is money being transferred from the next generation to those who got us into the financial trouble. This bill is just not a good idea.

Break the bill into parts and it will be even more open to voters on what exactly is being spent on what. Make an infrastructure improvement bill. Make a tax relief bill. Make it more transparent by breaking it up. This "10,000 projects" in one bill has to farking stop.

Yeah, I am all for STD and pregnancy prevention and even I can see that this was just their way of sneaking in the legislation in an area where it's more likely to get by the conservatives.

It's stupid and they should make a different STD prevention bill. While I don't like line-item vetos, there are issues, there should be a way to kind of separate out "parts" of a bill, and either accept or deny that part; for example, for this, Obama should be able to accept all parts of the bill except this particular one, but not be able to go in and say, oh, let's decrease it to x and change the wording. I dunno how it would work. But this shiat is stupid.

globalwarmingpraiser: We as a nation have to start taking stands against this crap on principle. You and I may disagree on a lot, but surely it is a good thing to be able to tell what a bill is by its name. Is it to much to want honesty in our politicians.

Are you willing to throw out the 99.5% good in this bill on principle because of the bad 0.5%?

We have to change the uptick rule back, like Soros said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/49b1654a-ed60-11dd-bd60-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_chec k =1

How you get a-rude and a-reckless
Don't you be so crude and a-feckless
You bin drinking brew for breakfast
Rudie can't fail

crab66: I will absolutely concede it doesn't belong in a stimulus package but why is preventative medicine such a terrible and scary thing to the right?

I don't think anyone is against preventive medicine or STD prevention, but it doesn't belong in this package.

Pelosi's defense was classic. How does she stay in office??

Is stupid an STD? I think I caught it from reading TFA.

Donald_McRonald: Is stupid an STD? I think I caught it from reading TFA.

Stop jacking off to the articles man! I learned my lesson.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: globalwarmingpraiser: We as a nation have to start taking stands against this crap on principle. You and I may disagree on a lot, but surely it is a good thing to be able to tell what a bill is by its name. Is it to much to want honesty in our politicians.

Are you willing to throw out the 99.5% good in this bill on principle because of the bad 0.5%?

Why not, it won't take em much longer to revise the bill. It's not like the projects must start by next Thursday. Half of the funding in the appropriations in the bill don't even start till next year.

FarkedOver: Donald_McRonald: Is stupid an STD? I think I caught it from reading TFA.

Stop jacking off to the articles man! I learned my lesson.

Actually I found this article difficult to masturbate to.

Creepy beard man was watching too closely.

Donald_McRonald: FarkedOver: Donald_McRonald: Is stupid an STD? I think I caught it from reading TFA.

Stop jacking off to the articles man! I learned my lesson.

Actually I found this article difficult to masturbate to.

Creepy beard man was watching too closely.

thanks, i was able to look beyond that but now i totally just lost my chubb thanks a lot.

Where were you guys 3 months ago when Bush wanted to be stimulated?

Oh right. You were still on board then and look where it got you.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: globalwarmingpraiser: We as a nation have to start taking stands against this crap on principle. You and I may disagree on a lot, but surely it is a good thing to be able to tell what a bill is by its name. Is it to much to want honesty in our politicians.

Are you willing to throw out the 99.5% good in this bill on principle because of the bad 0.5%?

I do not consider it 99.5% good. I consider it a waste of taxpayer money accross the board. So yes.

globalwarmingpraiser: I do not consider it 99.5% good. I consider it a waste of taxpayer money accross the board. So yes.

That's fine. I have no problem with political or practical reasons as for why the bill shouldn't pass. I think that should be debated, since I'm unclear on if it will work as well. I just don't think people should cherry-pick out the 0.5% of oddball funding in there as indicative of the entire bill.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: globalwarmingpraiser: I do not consider it 99.5% good. I consider it a waste of taxpayer money accross the board. So yes.

That's fine. I have no problem with political or practical reasons as for why the bill shouldn't pass. I think that should be debated, since I'm unclear on if it will work as well. I just don't think people should cherry-pick out the 0.5% of oddball funding in there as indicative of the entire bill.

I agree whole heartedly. Of course all Obama has to due is declare a State of Emergency due to the Ice Storm in the Mid West and take the Dictatorial powers that it would give him thanks to the Defense Appropriations bill of 2007.

Stimulate the PORK, BABY! YEAH!!!!

GOLDEN WHARGARBL!!!!!!>