They forced some things into the bill not a lot (you are exaggerating A LOT) and for those they can take credit. That's about it. The D's could have taken every thing out - everything and probably still bought the three votes the got. None of them, not one congressman or senator, read the whole damn thing anyway. The D's voted on party lines just like the R's. See it for what it is.

Nope - they gotta take what they can get when they can get it. There are a lot of people depending upon them.

That's a little hypocritical.

Sure. Some Democrats are douchebags too. Just be aware that you're as bad as Merc when it comes to sweeping generalizations along party lines.

Oh, yea, we're twins separated at birth.:rolleyes:

Okay, I'm a bit lefty, and even I know this crop of congressional dems are both insane and ignorant, far beyond even the hubris and jabbering stupidity of the congressional dems in the late 80s. That's not bashing on a party, it's just stating a fact.

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Im not sure what this means, but it sounds like one of those talking points.

The "state stabilization funds" component of the bill are to supplement the growing need for funding for programs administered by the states - $$$ for unemployment insurance or food stamps as a result of 3 million people loosng their jobs in the last 18 months. Or $$$ in education or public safety funds so states/cities/counties dont have to lay-off teachers or cops.

Many of the infrastructure and jobs projects, would seem to support, at least to some degree, the Reagan concept of "new federalism".....send the money to states, with few strings attached beyond broad program objectives, and let the states determine the best means of allocating those funds.

There are programs in the bill that would likely require long term funding in order to meet long term objectives. The intent of the stimulus bill has the duel purpose of creating jobs and providing "start up" for these longer term objectives - funding the development of "green" programs is an example.

But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.

There is definately nothing to say that the funds will go through such a process.

Poking around a bit on the issue of "putting items into state budgets that will force not only current spending..but also future spending.."

It looks to me like a few Republican governors with presidential ambitions - Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal - suggesting the bill contains unfunded state mandates...but offer no specificity on such mandates.

Maybe an unspecified staffer in an unspecified agency told them that if they got the money they might use it to create an unfunded state mandate.

Oh believe me, I can't stand most politicians. I just think republicans are worse.

yea but are you as bad as me. :lol2:

Naw. They're just stupid in a (very) slightly different way.

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

I'll give you an example of those "talking points" about forcing states to do something.

The stimulus bill includes $$$ to increase the amount and length of time a person can collect unemployment insurance, in light of the fact that there are more people losing their jobs every day (500,000+ in January alone, over 2 million in the last year) and experiencing unemployment for long periods of time.

The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.

The administration is not forcing the state to change its law. But as a practical matter, a state may need legislative action to comply with its own law.