Senate passed economic stimulus bill

I would have preferred that the pork be cut before it was passed, but since when does our government REALLY care about it? *sarcasm* In their eyes, a little extra bacon for their friends doesn't hurt us...right? */sarcasm*

A "start" to what?

Don't worry about the House, Nancy Pelosi would pass a piece of excretement floating down the river if Barack told her it was a good thing.

And the market tumbles at the news.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29119665

Hey, that's pretty much what Chuck Schumer said this afternoon too. Without the /sarc though.

So out of touch.

"Gird your loins, America." Man, it sucks that Joe Biden was right.

Call a spade a spade. Spending bill is the correct term and the amount of pork that is in it fits nicely with what is between the ears of Congress and both administrations (Bush and Congress for approving a bailout for bad banks)- pork fat, nice and greasy.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it:

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." Henry Morgenthau, Jr testifies before the Ways and Means Committee in 1939

Note, this was after 8 years of the "New Deal" to pull the country out of the Depression. It didn't work. The US came out of The Depression because we went to war, World War II.

And just so you're not confused (as I was...I did forget history for a bit ) FDR was elected 4 times, and served from 1933 until his death in 1945. It was after this, and because of this, that the term limits on the President.

I recall Obama saying those same words as the beginning of this quote - that we are spending more money than we have ever spent before. I guess in his eyes, if the history has been rewritten so that the New Deal actually worked, then it's a good thing to repeat. But during those years of the New Deal, the unemployment rate was stagnant - it went neither up nor down - while they poured money into the economy.

Obama also mentioned the "lost decade" in Japan's economy. What he didn't mention is that they quadrupled the national debt before the economy turned around.

I agree with you... throwing money (money we don't have!) at the problems isn't going to make them go away. It doesn't matter which administration does it.

My Dad - who will be 89 this year - sent me this link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=aLzfDxfbwhzs#

The medical part is really scary - especially for the Seniors needing care.
It looks like after all the automation, and physician guidelines there will be cost-productive decisions made based on those guidelines. Forget the Hippocratic Oath.

The formula might look like this - expected life span -vs- procedure costs = decision to treat or not to treat.

Last year my dad almost died of pneumonia . The doctors considered his age and wrote him off. Prior to this he had the body of a 55 year old man - still very active, able to out do men 30 years younger than he. But because his wife (not my deceased mom - Dad remarried to a woman 20 years his junior) insisted they forget his age, and treat him as he was a 55 year old.

The doctors gave all sorts of dire predictions should he recover, like he'd probably spend the remainder of his life in a nursing home. WRONG! Because of our ability to insist on the hospital pulling out all the stops, and them having the ability to do so - he is out, and active today. The illness did slow him down quite a lot, and he's still regaining his strength - but who wouldn't be in a less healthy condition after your kidneys, liver, etc. had already shut down and then brought back.? (By-the-way, the doctors apologized for their stinkin' thinkin' (my words) - and now Dad is a case study in the hospital's ICU department.)

Yes it cost a lot of money - but do we place a $$ value on life? My dad fought in WWII for his country, he worked hard all his life, was (is) a contributing member of society, supported his family, paid his taxes - like Social Security, and Medicare. I digress, sorry.

It appears, according to the article, that once a person reaches a certain age they will not be eligible for life-giving care.

This is one of the a paragraphs, of the text of the link, that I'm referring to:
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

So, should I, as a Senior, accept that at a certain age I'm too costly to keep around, and my quality of life - or even life - should be disregarded?

In some cultures the elderly go on a journey, by themselves, to die.

Is this the "future" I should look forward to?

If the health care that Daschle prescribes does come to pass, we'll all be sorry.

Bless your Father's heart GloriaJH. Thank him for his heroic service to his country. My 85 year old WWII vet father died last year. They don't make men like our fathers anymore, that is one big reason of what is wrong with this country. Self sacrifice is an unknown concept.

There's a reason they're called "The Greatest Generation". I'm so sorry to hear that your father is gone, sounds like he was your Hero, too.
Thank you for your kind words for my Dad, I'll be sure and pass them on to him.

You are very welcome. I forgot to add, what I find extremely impressive, also, is the fact that your father is computer savvy at 89 years young. WOW, that is amazing.

Isn't that a bit condescending? Just because we grow older doesn't mean we become stupid.

Where did that come from? Cindy was impressed, not condescending, even called him "89years young." Many people don't attempt to learn new technology period, much less someone who would have been in their 70's when PCs became popular.

Wow. That's just plain scary. And this is supposed to be the party of compassion? Do the people who support them really know what they support? I truly cannot imagine the people here who are liberal in their politics, who I know are good, kind, compassionate people, could possibly support this.

This is also scary as a person with a lifelong, progressive, but not terminal, disease. The insurance companies have already written off anyone with the diagnosis of MS - I cannot get life insurance or a stand alone health insurance policy that doesn't cost literally over a thousand dollars/month. The treatment available to slow the progression of the disease (not treat the symptoms, just slow but not stop the progression) cost between $2500 - over $10,000 per month (retail, no insurance). Many of the people who are on these DMDs (disease modifying drugs) are also considered disabled and are on federal assistance (SSDI) and Medicare. So they are not "meaningful users" if my assumption of that is correct in that they would not be able to pay into the system via earned income.

Obviously, people with MS make up a small portion of the population, but I'm using that example because that's what I know. What about other chronic diseases? What about the person who is over 65 and is diagnosed with cancer? What about autistic or developmentally disabled children who likely won't be able to hold a meaningful job? Or people like Gloria's father when he had pneumonia?

The medical system is broken right now; I think we can all agree on that. But this isn't Nazi Germany where we just get rid of the undesirable elements. This isn't something that should be determined on a "cost effective" basis.

But I guess that would take care of the Social Security deficit they're facing with the proposed "tax cut" that's actually a refund of SS monies.

There is much debate about whether it worked or not, but I find this bit of information interesting, from the BBC:

(italics mine)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/educat...eal3_rev.shtml

There's also a debate on whether or not Reaganomics worked. My opinion is that no it didn't. Here is an article from PBC that argues both sides. Of course, I'll only quote that part that agrees with my thinking, but here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/econo...n_6-10-04.html

The deficit also grew under Reagan:

So you can't really call him all that fiscally conservative.

By being impressed that someone who is 89 could possibly understand modern technology, that's what struck me as a bit condescending. It's one thing to not attempt to learn it, or not want to learn it, but another to act as though it's astonishing that someone at age 89 actually did make the effort. It's like the classes they offer at the local community college - Computer classes for seniors run at a "slower pace" than the regular classes. Speaking as a senior, I've taken the regular classes and been bored out of my mind waiting for the younger people to catch up. It really has nothing to do with age, and I think we all make an effort to learn what interests us and disregard what doesn't.

Him using the computer has been so wonderful for us, especially with our communication - we live 9 hours away, and email is great to have. The Internet has opened up a whole new world for him.

I so agree that his ability to use the computer and using the internet is amazing. He's a good example for me to keep on challenging my mind and not to settle for the status quo.

Just watching Lou Dobbs on CNN (only thing I can stomach on there) and he had on a guest talking about the health care portion. Same lady was on Glenn Beck earlier.

Apparently in Daschle's book (written when he had hopes of being in charge of HHS) he wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

I can't say what I am thinking here.

I wonder, do we have any hope when the two bodies (the House, and the Senate) try to reconcile the bill?

Looks like Specter got a visit from some angry citizens today.

http://www.melaniemorgan.com/content/view/1376/1/

Of course, he wasn't there.

I doubt it, unless we march on DC.

I'm sorry I'm clear in California - and, don't seem to have any money to make it to Washington, hmmm

What is the Bill's name now? I didn't hear President O say the word "Stimulus Bill" when he announced that it had been passed in the Senate - he called it something else - anyone know what he called it?

I think it's got some crazy acronym like WEWON or something.

It has some name, it's officially HR 1.

I really don't like the implications of what this guy reveals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1...layer_embedded

Remember all the talk about a "manufactured crisis" from Biden? Rahm Emmanuel saying "never let a good crisis go to waste?"

It explains the urgency behind GWB's actions. I take back what I said about him over-reacting back then.

And if you're not worried enough, check out the article on the "green" technology.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/...ogy/10grid.php

Google will announce its entry Tuesday into the small but growing business of "smart grid," digital technologies that seek to both keep the electrical system on an even keel and reduce electrical energy consumption.

Google is one of a number of companies devising ways to control the demand for electric power as an alternative to building more power plants. The company has developed a free Web service called PowerMeter that consumers can use to track energy use in their house or business as it is consumed.



Boy, I can't wait for the government to let me run my dishwasher at 2am.

We are so screwed.

I think I said that already. More than once.

No matter how many times you say it, it won't be enough.

You, obviously, do not know me, at all, on this forum or you would not say the above, so I will just let it go with a simple answer, nothing, nothing, could be further from the truth.

oh, just heard on the news, the HR-1 is now being called the
"Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act".