Can someone explain why this is called a "stimulus"

[dude1394]

When only 29billion of a 825billion "stimulus" package will be spent in 2009, why is this called a "stimulus" package at all?
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0127193220.gif

And why in a "stimulus" package are we allocating 365billion dollars into projects (road, bridges, etc.) that will take decades to complete? It will take at least a year or two to even put anyone to work building those projects due to enviromental concerns.

Frequently in the past, in all types of federal programs, a noticeable lag has occurred between sharp increases in funding and resulting increases in outlays. Based on such experiences, CBO expects that federal agencies, states, and other recipients of funding would find it difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs so as to spend added funds quickly as they expend their normal resources. The seasonal nature of some spending also affects the speed at which activities can be conducted; for example, major school repairs are generally scheduled during the summer to avoid disrupting classes.

I expect that cutting capital gains to zero and accelerating write-offs on equipment would do more than any of this pork.

[dude1394]

Or...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318933384726785.html

And what of the plan being put forward now? As crafted, it is unlikely to produce the desired results. For a similar amount of money, the government could essentially cut the payroll tax in half, taking three points off the rate for both the employer and the employee. This would put $1,500 into the pocket of a typical worker making $50,000, with a similar amount going to his or her employer. It would provide a powerful stimulus to the spending stream, as well as a significant, six percentage point reduction in the tax burden of employment for people making less than $100,000. The effects would be immediate.

[DirkFTW]

Sigh. This thing is so jam packed with earmarks and pork. I think there's an alternative bill proposal out there that costs half as much and is alleged to create twice as many jobs.

Various items from the House and Senate bills:

$6,000 million to subsidize university building projects
$400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing
$75 million to stop smoking
$1,500 million for a “carbon-capturing contest”
$200 million for DOD alternative energy vehicles
$572 million for Coast Guard “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements”
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$100 million for non-intrusive detection technology at sea ports
$150 million for construction at sea ports
$25 million to repair off-road ATV trails
$200 million for FEMA
$276 million for construction of data backup facilities and cyber-security for the State Dept.
$2,825 million for broadband internet, $1,000 million of which is for wireless broadband internet
$350 million for State Department broadband internet
STD education programs

At least they got rid of paying for contraceptives and reseeding the White House lawn.

This is a belated Christmas wish list, not a plan to save us from the worst economic crisis of our time.

[DirkFTW]

Link

Basically, this thing isn't even going to kick in until 2010 and beyond. Hope you all can tread water for the next 12-18 months.

Or worse yet, say we somehow get out of this recession in 2009... and then the real spending kicks in. Would that derail us again? This thing looks like a ticking time bomb for our kids, but it could blow up a lot sooner than that if our economy is as frail as they say.

[dalmations202]

Stimulus Payment Information


"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a
very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the American economy.



We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

But it´s a global crisis. Market protecion can make things go even worse.

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

[mcsluggo]

David brooks makes a much better case for the argument espoused in this thread (by avoiding the whiny "my panties hurt" partisanship)

Cleaner and Faster

By DAVID BROOKS-- Published: January 29, 2009

Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”

The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.

Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day. Make the short-term stimulus bigger. Many liberal economists have been complaining it is too small, so replace the permanent programs with something like a big payroll tax cut, which would help the working class.

Add in a fiscal exit strategy so the whole thing is budget neutral over the medium term. Finally, coordinate the stimulus package with plans to shore up the housing and financial markets. Until those come to life, no amount of stimulus will do any good.

This recession is scary and complicated. It’s insane to try to tackle it and dozens of other complicated problems, all in one piece of legislation. Leadership involves prioritizing. Those who try to do everything at once will end up with a sprawling, lobbyist-driven mess that does nothing well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

So in every country men should spend more money on prostitutes and alcohol.



Create more jobs because of the proof of supply and demand.



Makes more sense than $825 billion to me.

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

On that note - what about legalizing/taxing marijuana?

How much money would that raise per state (not to mention the money it would save not having to house the 1% of our national population that currently reside in our overcrowded prison system)?


Just tossing ideas out there...

I am not saying I am for it, but if this really is the home of free choice --

why not go ahead and tax legal prostitution, tax the snot out of many drugs, etc.

I have been to Amsterdam. All I ask for is that "IF" it is proved that a drug (alcohol) is the reason for the crime, the sentence be automatically doubled and no parole. Steal for drug money (double the sentence - no parole). DWI -- double sentence, no parole. Black Market drugs -- life in prison or death sentence.

[TrippleT123]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Stimulus Payment Information


"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a
very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India .
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan .
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan .

And none of it will help the American economy.



We need to keep that money here in America.

You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a
baseball game, or spend it on prostitutes, beer and wine (domestic ONLY),
funerals, weddings, or tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in
the US .

we only get around 15-20% of gas from middle eastern countries!

[dude1394]

Ouch...double ouch.. With a stroke of a pen...I just borrowed 60,000 from my kids. The baby boomers are REALLY putting their mark on the country. With the on-going ponzi scheme and this robbery...they should be proud.

I was sitting here with my two older grandsons and when word came that the bill had been approved by the Senate I said, “congrats boys, you just went about $30,000 into debt tonight”. Of course that spurred an instant response - “What!?”. And then we had a nice little talk.

http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uplo...rk_sb0317d.jpg

A bill full of wasteful, unfocused spending with money we don’t have and we’ll be lectured soon about “fiscal responsibility” and “sacrifice” by the profligate yahoos that put this mess together. Can’t wait.

~McQ

[dude1394]

Holy Mackeral..this guy will say anything. My party got theirs...now let's tighten our belt.

http://deanesmay.com/2009/02/18/obam...of-the-sudden/

WSJ: Obama to Shift Focus to Deficit

With a $787 billion stimulus package in hand, President Barack Obama will pivot quickly to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year.

He has scheduled a “fiscal-responsibility summit” on Feb. 23 and will unveil a budget blueprint three days later, crafted to put pressure on politicians to address the country’s surging long-term debt crisis.

The long-term deficit is indeed a major problem, one that needs to be addressed. I’m glad to see Obama raising the issue, and I hope he follows through with real entitlement reform rather than making a lot of noise and then failing to actually pass anything, or temporarilly patching the deficit with tax increases.

But if Obama’s serious about fiscal discipline, he should have started by not asking Congress for the spendulus.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Holy Mackeral..this guy will say anything. My party got theirs...now let's tighten our belt.

http://deanesmay.com/2009/02/18/obam...of-the-sudden/

how can you be critical of any effort to reduce spending? even if you were against the stimulus package, reducing other spending programs is positive.

or maybe you merely wish to be the guy who is against anything obama does regardless....

[DirkFTW]

During this once-in-100-years economic crisis, the worst since the Great Depression and likely the Next Depression, where we allegedly stand at the precipice of resurrection or complete collapse...

the White House can still celebrate the passing of this stimulus plan with Wagyu steak for all the Congresspeople. That's a $100 steak.

I bet it was even more delicious because we footed the damn bill.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

the White House can still celebrate the passing of this stimulus plan with Wagyu steak for all the Congresspeople. That's a $100 steak.

I bet it was even more delicious because we footed the damn bill.

Ahh, bi-partisanship at it's finest...


(it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican - just remember, you're not one of THEM...)

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Ahh, bi-partisanship at it's finest...


(it doesn't matter if you vote Democrat or Republican - just remember, you're not one of THEM...)

No kidding. Here I am buying my own food like a chump!

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

No kidding. Here I am buying my own food like a chump!

...and with your OWN money!

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Underdog

...and with your OWN money!

What do you mean "own" money?

Money, much like all land only belongs to the government.

[FreshJive]

"Money ain't got no owners. Only spenders."
Omar Little

[mcsluggo]

now it is the senate's turn to take a crack.

I personally hope Republicans can end their petty petulance and become integral authors/owners of this legislation. By choosing to focus on "making a stand" and "demonstrating party cohesion" but largely failing to focus on substantive and constructive criticisms and contributions, Republicans thus far have allowed Democrats to fall back on THEIR worst instincts as well.

The best path is near the middle, but both Democrats and Republicans need the checks from each other in order to stay near there. If GOP decides to gamble that the whole thing will fail anyhow (and want to leave the Dems holding the bag) then they will take their ball and go home-- and will only offer baloney soundbite "contributions" that are aimed only at the next elections. If they do this, I fear what will end up.

The middle of the road dems in congress will not be able to hold their ground against the fringe ones without genuine republican participation... and we will basically end up with a mirror image of the dark "Tom Delay days"... just from the other side.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I personally hope Republicans can end their petty petulance and become integral authors/owners of this legislation.

My understanding of the problem with the House Bill is that only Democrats were allowed to author and contribute to it. Pelosi refused to meet with GOP leaders, something Obama had to do instead. I think bipartisan input on this thing could be very helpful.

But the realist in me says that bipartisan input will result in the worst of both worlds... something like the elimination of the Tax Code along with $3 trillion in spending. And Wagyu steaks stuffed with Kobe beef, garnished with Australian lobster, on a bed of arugula.

[Mavdog]

this spending bill looks alot like what it would look like if there were a party at the capitol and every congressperson got drunk and voted.

maybe they did...

while there are many projects in the bill that I can support as they do invest in our future, this bill has way too many projects that are not "stimulus", and should be in the general spending bills.

guess we'll call it "the drunken sailor stimulus bill of 2009".

and yes udog, we should legalize and tax. think of the $billions that we save by no longer spending (futilly I might add) on enforcement, the revenue from the taxes, and the added benefit of no longer supporting the narco drug barons who are destabilizing our neighbors to the south.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this spending bill looks alot like what it would look like if there were a party at the capitol and every congressperson got drunk and voted.

maybe they did...

while there are many projects in the bill that I can support as they do invest in our future, this bill has way too many projects that are not "stimulus", and should be in the general spending bills.

guess we'll call it "the drunken sailor stimulus bill of 2009".

and yes udog, we should legalize and tax. think of the $billions that we save by no longer spending (futilly I might add) on enforcement, the revenue from the taxes, and the added benefit of no longer supporting the narco drug barons who are destabilizing our neighbors to the south.

Finding a quote where I nearly agree with everything is just marvelous. But, the drunken sailors were all Democrats because the Republicans were shut out by the rules instated by Nazi Pelosi.

[dude1394]

Not only shut out but voted agin it. This porkfest is all democrat.

[alexamenos]

legalize and tax?

how about, legalize and subsidize?

[Mavdog]

GOP governors press Congress to pass stimulus bill
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
39 mins ago

NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.

"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.

Not a single Republican voted with the majority last week when the House approved Obama's $819 billion combination of tax cuts and new spending. The president's goal is to create or preserve 3 million to 4 million jobs.

Republicans led by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained that the plan is laden with pet projects and will not yield the jobs or stimulate the economy in the way Obama has promised.

The measure faces GOP opposition in the Senate, where it will be up for a vote in the week ahead.

But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.

This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.

"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression — anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion," the NGA statement said. "Governors ... support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment."

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn't politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

"For governors, it's free money — they get the benefits and they don't have to pay the costs of raising the revenues," Frazier said. "Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill."

That's not to say Republican governors are entirely enthusiastic about the plan. Some worry about the debt incurred through so much federal borrowing.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.

"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."

The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

"It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."

But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.

"I'm quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn't have," Pawlenty said. "We're on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing."

[wmbwinn]

yes, I read that article before I re-found it here.

Republicans are not opposed to the entire bill, just most of it.

1)State funding is a problem
2)real economic stimulus is ok if it makes sense. most of the bill has nothing to do with economic stimulus and is just a huge pork party
3)job production/protection which is the same thing as economic stimulus

if the bill were just about the three points above (which many/most Republicans would support), then the bill would cost forty percent of its current most minimal estimate.

The States do need funding help. That is not so much a partisan issue. Now, there may be some deep partisan divide about how to prevent that from happening again next year....

[alexamenos]

white guys in suits probably shouldn't rap

[alexamenos]

reliably, politicians are more principled and more sensible when they're out of power. dick army get's jiggy with it....

link

...no one spends someone else's money better than they spend their own. The charade of the current stimulus package, chockablock with earmarks to favored pet constituencies and virtually devoid of national policy considerations, is the logical consequence of Keynesianism in action. It is about politics and power, not sound economics...

[alexamenos]

geezus....this recession thingy is worse than I imagined:

vid

[dude1394]

Ruh Oh...

Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Related survey data shows that half the nation’s voters say the plan that finally emerges from Congress may end up doing more harm than good.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

geezus....this recession thingy is worse than I imagined:

vid

OH THANK THE LORD! Obviously, Congress has been accidentally adding 3-6 zeros to every number in their stimulus plan.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

OH THANK THE LORD! Obviously, Congress has been accidentally adding 3-6 zeros to every number in their stimulus plan.

i really hope this is what's been happening.

[GermanDunk]

Where does USA get the money for the stimulous plan from when Obama promised tax relief I mean 800 bn. is a lot of money.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Where does USA get the money for the stimulous plan from when Obama promised tax relief I mean 800 bn. is a lot of money.

the money comes from the same place the trillion dollars for war came from...

it is borrowed from China and others around the world...

[FINtastic]

Guys it's time to stop bickering and start acting because we don't have anymore time to waste. The oracle known as Nancy Pelosi just released these startling figures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyjmDaS0Tg

Soon all my imaginary friends are going to be out of jobs too!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Guys it's time to stop bickering and start acting because we don't have anymore time to waste. The oracle known as Nancy Pelosi just released these startling figures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiyjmDaS0Tg

Soon all my imaginary friends are going to be out of jobs too!

Fin, the problem is that the bill as composed by Nazi Pelosi is not going to help your real friends or your imaginary friends. Scaring us with the facts of jobs lost doesn't change the fact that Pelosi wrote a bill that doesn't help anything and makes things worse.

[alby]

So can we all agree the real name of this thing is called The Socialism Act of 2009?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by alby

So can we all agree the real name of this thing is called The Socialism Act of 2009?

I don't think so. I think it's more like the Democrat Purchasing Vote Act of 2009.