Will Congress approve Obama's stimulus bill before Feb. 16?

Just to be clear - Congress may MODIFY it, but it'll still be "Obama's stimulus bill".

this is a no brainer.

I say sign it only if it gets rid of the IRS. that would be stimulating....

The question states "before Feb. 16". So If it is approved on Feb 16th that would be a "NO"???

That's how it reads, before is prior too

Confirming that approved on the 16th would be a "no".

(2009-01-25) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanapolous Sunday that the Democrat’s economic stimulus bill, containing hundreds of millions of dollars for “family planning” services for the poor, will make real cuts in the number of low-income people, thereby saving taxpayer dollars, and increasing average income for everyone.

“Poor people are a luxury we just can’t afford,’ said Rep. Pelosi, “They cost us a lot of money to maintain; what with food stamps, housing and health care. So if we can rapidly reduce the number of poor people through contraception and abortion, that’s a net gain for federal and state budgets, and a fast track to economic recovery. Every poor baby prevented is like money in the bank.”

A spokesman for Planned Parenthood, the world’s leading abortion sales chain, confirmed Mrs. Pelosi’s
assertion, noting that “even if the stimulus bill helps harvest only the low-hanging fruit by reducing live births among blacks and hispanics, that would be a major boost, since minorities comprise nearly 50 percent of those on Medicaid.”

Planned Parenthood continues to lobby Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration to include even more funding in the stimulus bill for better marketing efforts to attract minority women who have not yet considered abortion as “a viable lifestyle choice.”

“Despite our best efforts to date,” the source said, “only 1-in-5 pregnancies ends in abortion. We need the marketing money to spur growth in what we call our frequent-flier segment. Blacks make up only about 13 percent of the population, yet they have 40 percent of the abortions. We still think there’s real upside potential there.”

The spokesman added that, “Planned Parenthood, since its inception, has been the Sam’s Club of abortions for minority communities. We keep the product cheap so our customers can buy in large quantities. What we lose in profit per procedure we more than make up for in volume. Of course, our work also helps reduce racial tensions by adhering to time-tested Darwinian principles.”

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3221

Blind Unanimity
Congressional Republicans, Meet PATCO
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, January 30, 2009; Page A19

"Watching the House Republicans vote unanimously against President Obama's economic stimulus package, I thought of Ronald Reagan, the air traffic controllers and the potential consequences for those who fail to recognize that one political era has given way to the next.

You may recall that the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization went on strike in August 1981, seeking better working conditions and more pay. Reagan had been in office just seven months, and the nation still wasn't quite sure what to make of him. The controllers union had legitimate gripes and calculated that the new president would deal rather than risk a disruption of air travel. The union knew that strikes by government workers were illegal, strictly speaking, but it also knew that other organizations of federal employees had gotten away with similar walkouts in the past.

Reagan declared the strike a "peril to national safety" and gave the more than 13,000 air traffic controllers 48 hours to return to work. A few complied. When the deadline expired, Reagan fired the 11,345 controllers who had defied him. Two months later, the union was decertified. Years passed before any of the strikers were allowed to work as controllers again.
ad_icon

The point isn't to revisit the merits of the strike or the wisdom of Reagan's hard-line stance. The point is that the controllers' union failed to realize that the dawn of the Reagan administration represented a rare fundamental shift in American politics. Under Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford or even Richard Nixon, the controllers might well have won their strike. Under Reagan, they had no chance -- not only because of his stubborn resolve but also because American voters had given him a broad mandate for change.

That episode turned out to be just the beginning. Before Reagan, the economic beliefs that came to define the modern Republican Party -- always cut taxes, always slash government spending, always deregulate -- were associated with the conservative fringe. He brought them into the mainstream, effectively shifting the whole political spectrum sharply to the right.

Reagan's new orthodoxy wouldn't have been possible unless Americans had the sense that the old orthodoxy had reached a dead end. Carter had famously talked about "a crisis of confidence." There was the feeling that America's greatness was somehow slipping away, that things were out of control, that the old rhetoric was empty, that the old solutions wouldn't solve anything, that we needed to try something new.

Um, is this ringing any bells for Republicans on Capitol Hill?

Scratch that question. When not one single, solitary Republican vote can be found in the House of Representatives to support the president's $819 billion stimulus package, it's pretty clear that the GOP caucus has been meeting in a soundproof room.

What I've been hearing from Republicans in both the House and Senate has been a kind of attenuated, distorted echo of the economic doctrine that the party has preached, if not always practiced, since the Reagan years. It's perfectly appropriate, of course, to ask whether a specific spending proposal would have the desired stimulative effect; indeed, some items were removed from the stimulus bill for that reason. But underlying the Republican criticism has been a familiar formula: more tax cuts, fewer spending initiatives.

But Americans know that this philosophy has already taken us as far as it could. Americans know that taxes can be cut by only so much before the federal government's effectiveness inevitably suffers. Americans know that spending money doesn't necessarily mean wasting it. Americans know that the economic crisis means that taking the position that government is inherently oppressive, if not fundamentally evil, is now intellectually bankrupt, because government is the only instrument we have in the high-stakes attempt to induce financial and economic recovery.

If Republicans hadn't broken the bank with drunken-sailorish spending during most of George W. Bush's time in the White House, their complaints about the cost of the stimulus package and its impact on future deficits would be more credible. As things stand, we have to let actions speak: absolute solidarity among House Republicans in voting no.

It was a triumph of discipline over reason, of doctrine over observation. There is abundant evidence suggesting that we are in a new political era with new rules and a new lexicon. Those who ignore that evidence will have only themselves to blame if, like the air traffic controllers, they end up losing their jobs."

Thanks for posting that piece deelilley. I'd like to think it'd be a thought provocative article for the fundies on this site but I fear it will be lost on them as they bitterly cling to their guns and their bibles. Course, now that the new face of the GOP is a african american dude who called Bush his homie, I'm guessing the party will further fracture. It's only a matter of time now before they fade into the woodwork as they realize they are the air traffic controllers in this scenario.

I am so impressed with the resmuglicanss fiscal responsibility!!!

Arrogant at home, naive abroad. America is already suffering 'buyer's regret' over Obama
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1131552/MARY-ELLEN-SYNON-Arrogant-home-naive-abroad-America-suffering-buyers-regret-Obama.html

Yesterday, just eight days after the inauguration, President Obama had his £576bn so-called stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives - but without a single vote from any Republican.

All 177 House Republicans opposed the bill. None of them fell for that 'bi-partisan' tripe, which is Democrat code for 'do it our way.'

...

Yet Obama was keen to have support from the Republicans. He didn't get it, because what he really wanted was submission from the Republicans.

Clearly the Republicans on the Hill don't reckon they are going to get any backlash from the voters in their districts because they have given a No to The One. They understand that already their voters don't like what Obama is doing, or indeed the arrogance with which he is doing it.

Just two days after the inauguration, when Republican legislators told the president they objected to the massive spending bill, Obama dismissed them with two words: 'I won.'

That was a particularly stupid mistake by the new president. Hard-left Democrats may cheer at such gloating, but most Americans don't like that kind of contempt being shown to Congress.

Re comment #1: if a significant amount of the pork and special interest paybacks, etc., are removed from the bill, is it really still "Obama's bill"? It won't be what he wanted or intended. Food for thought, and relevant to settlement of this question.

Looks like we have moved from "Hope over Fear"- (Obama inaugural address)

to fear:

"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe" as Obama desperately tries to pass his unpopular bill

obviously his hopes of the reps to coop were squashed. now he must fear the worst for the US....

there was a tentative deal....is that a settle as a yes?

Wow! Hopium and pork addiction is expensive: $780,000,000,000.00

kruijs - rotflol @ hopes of the reps to coop. since your so up on american politics krujis tell me what the bill the house passed had any republican input? i'll save you from going to wiki. ABSLOUTLEY NOTHING! the dems completely shut them out and rammed the bill through. why would they vote yes for a 100% dem wrote bill? bi-partisan means theres give and take from BOTH sides..NOT its my way or no way. once again you cast stones from afar with out knowing what your talking about.

Maybe Carter wasn't so bad afterall...

Biden: 30 Percent Chance We'll Get It Wrong
Vice President acknowledged Democrats could face political repercussions in 2010 for their support of the economic stimulus package.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/02/07/biden-percent-chance-wrong/

@dd: You got that right about casting stones from afar!

There was another question ( http://www.hubdub.com/m30952/Will_Rush_Limbaugh_go_on_CNNs_No_Bias_No_Bull_program_and_debate_Campbell_Brown ) where he used a quote from Senator Robert Byrd in a discussion where he was trying to prove FOX news viewers were dumb! LOL

just so we are clear..since the bill passed by the Senate was different from the bill passed by the House and now they have to agree on a final draft of the bill, this question can't be settled as a yes UNLESS they agree on a final draft BEFORE Feb 16th?

tough to request a settlement when the link isn't on there.

"Obama to Veto Stimulus Bill"
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=3238