Another Stimulus?

[jgaffney]

Michelle Malkin has this:

Stimulus-palooza: It never ends.

And thanks to the cooperation of a GOP White House and enough congressional Republicans, the orgy is expanding.

Nancy Pelosi is floating a new $150 billion stimulus package with the same old goodies attached — including “public works, increasing food stamps benefits and extending unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless.”

Get ready to swallow again:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that a $150 billion economic stimulus plan is needed now because of the faltering economy and she may call the House into session after the election to pass it.

Pelosi told reporters that the stock market meltdown, which has caused an estimated $2 trillion loss from pension funds, was a factor in her recommendation for a second stimulus bill. The first relief plan sent out $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples this year.

The House did pass a $61 billion economic aid proposal last month before lawmakers left Capitol Hill ahead of the Nov. 4 election. But a similar plan failed to pass the Senate. President Bush had promised a veto anyway.

If Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the White House and if Capitol Hill Democrats make gains in the elections as well, it might be easier to pass a stimulus measure over dispirited Republicans, especially if the economy remains in big trouble.

Was I dreaming during the debate, or was Obama hammering McCain over the way that the deficit had grown under "the failed economic policies of George W. Bush"? So, now, the Democrats are proposing to increase the deficit even more?

I guess deficit spending is OK when you're buying votes!

[bolverk]

I would love to see McCain pull out a copy of the Constitution in the next debate and dare Obama to show exactly where it says that the President has any authority over the economy, other then to sign or veto bills passed in the House and the Senate, and to send it back marked up with his objections. This economy melted down over the last two years, after the Democrats gained control of the House and used all their time to decry the Bush years, rather then focusing on their job at hand. Making sure this country is economically sound.

[bolverk]

You have been exalted for you informative post.

[Mink]

Malkin- not a formidable source.

[jgaffney]

Oct 12, 2008 18:22:51 GMT -5 Mink said:

Malkin- not a formidable source.

Malkin was the source of the editorializing before the news clip. Yahoo News was the source of the body of the post. You may disparage Malkin if you like, but I don't believe you can deny the facts of the issue.

[Mink]

So, why did you take the stimulus package Bush lovingly gave you? Malkin is still an unformidable source especially with this load of cr*p.

[The Big Dog]

So what is exactly a load of crap here Mink? Is it Malkin's editorializing or could it perhaps be the next $160B that Madame Speaker, Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer want to give us all?

Your answer, if cogent, should be the latter but I certainly don't expect that. You'll simply twist a word or two and present it all as Bush's fault.

[bolverk]

Oct 12, 2008 18:22:51 GMT -5 Mink said:

Malkin- not a formidable source.

ahh hahahahahahaha, and you are?

There is one inescapable truth. The Democrats spent two years tearing down this administration so they could win this election. In that two years, nothing was done to prevent the financial melt down, nothing. Not one bill passed, not one committee committed to saving the people from what happened. Politics before substance, politics before the people. That is the real Democrat mantra.

[jgaffney]

Chew on this, Mink. This is from The Hill:

House Democratic leaders on Monday announced a broad economic recovery package aimed at the middle class that they say needs to be enacted in the wake of the Wall Street rescue bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) led a meeting of almost a dozen top House Democrats and about as many economists on Monday morning. She said the group coalesced around a general economic recovery package aimed at aiding states, extending unemployment insurance benefits, investing in transportation and infrastructure, and perhaps providing a new round of tax rebate checks.

Pelosi said the package would be hammered out after various committees hold hearings in the coming weeks, adding that it may well exceed the $61 billion economic stimulus package that the House recently passed. That measure stalled in the Senate.

“We plan to go forward expeditiously but not hastily,” Pelosi said.

The Speaker did not answer directly whether or not she will convene a lame-duck session of Congress following the Nov. 4 elections but indicated that it is a possibility.

“We will have the hearings and we’ll see what they yield,” she said. “We stand ready to take action when we are ready to do so.”

House Democrats and their economic consultants have been in direct contact with the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over the crafting of the proposal, and are already in agreement on its overall theme: a recovery for the rest of the economy, outside of Wall Street.

“This one needs to be entirely a rescue for ordinary people, so it will benefit those, primarily the homeowners, and people who are losing their jobs or who have lost their jobs, and cities and states and towns, so they don’t have to cut spending, raise taxes, and lay off workers in a recession,” said Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine and distinguished senior fellow of the think tank Demos. “All of us in the room gave essentially variations on that same advice.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said House Democrats received “unified advice and counsel” from their economic advisors, who besides Kuttner included former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

“In many ways, this is the economic challenge of our lifetime,” Hoyer said. But he and Pelosi also argued that the crisis presents Congress with “tremendous opportunities.”

Don't try to distract us with disparaging remarks about Michelle Malkin. The fact is that all of the talk from Sen. Obama about the explosion of the deficit during the eight years of the "failed economic policies of George W. Bush" is just that - talk. When it comes to deficit spending, no one can outdo the Democrat Party.

I have always wondered: If tax cuts are so good at stimulating the economy, why not make them permanent? Could it be that Congress just can't bring itself to forego the revenue?

[Mink]

Oct 13, 2008 12:23:48 GMT -5 @bolverk said:

Oct 12, 2008 18:22:51 GMT -5 Mink said:

Malkin- not a formidable source.

ahh hahahahahahaha, and you are?

There is one inescapable truth. The Democrats spent two years tearing down this administration so they could win this election. In that two years, nothing was done to prevent the financial melt down, nothing. Not one bill passed, not one committee committed to saving the people from what happened. Politics before substance, politics before the people. That is the real Democrat mantra.

hahahhahhaaaaaa....sigh. This isn't funny and by implying that this mess was created in the last two years, is ridiculous.

BTW, It's not that I have anything against Ms. Malkin, as she is a Pinay, however, she is just a pundit.

[Mink]

Oct 13, 2008 15:58:14 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

Chew on this, Mink. This is from The Hill:

House Democratic leaders on Monday announced a broad economic recovery package aimed at the middle class that they say needs to be enacted in the wake of the Wall Street rescue bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) led a meeting of almost a dozen top House Democrats and about as many economists on Monday morning. She said the group coalesced around a general economic recovery package aimed at aiding states, extending unemployment insurance benefits, investing in transportation and infrastructure, and perhaps providing a new round of tax rebate checks.

Pelosi said the package would be hammered out after various committees hold hearings in the coming weeks, adding that it may well exceed the $61 billion economic stimulus package that the House recently passed. That measure stalled in the Senate.

“We plan to go forward expeditiously but not hastily,” Pelosi said.

The Speaker did not answer directly whether or not she will convene a lame-duck session of Congress following the Nov. 4 elections but indicated that it is a possibility.

“We will have the hearings and we’ll see what they yield,” she said. “We stand ready to take action when we are ready to do so.”

House Democrats and their economic consultants have been in direct contact with the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over the crafting of the proposal, and are already in agreement on its overall theme: a recovery for the rest of the economy, outside of Wall Street.

“This one needs to be entirely a rescue for ordinary people, so it will benefit those, primarily the homeowners, and people who are losing their jobs or who have lost their jobs, and cities and states and towns, so they don’t have to cut spending, raise taxes, and lay off workers in a recession,” said Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine and distinguished senior fellow of the think tank Demos. “All of us in the room gave essentially variations on that same advice.”

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said House Democrats received “unified advice and counsel” from their economic advisors, who besides Kuttner included former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

“In many ways, this is the economic challenge of our lifetime,” Hoyer said. But he and Pelosi also argued that the crisis presents Congress with “tremendous opportunities.”

Don't try to distract us with disparaging remarks about Michelle Malkin. The fact is that all of the talk from Sen. Obama about the explosion of the deficit during the eight years of the "failed economic policies of George W. Bush" is just that - talk. When it comes to deficit spending, no one can outdo the Democrat Party.

I have always wondered: If tax cuts are so good at stimulating the economy, why not make them permanent? Could it be that Congress just can't bring itself to forego the revenue?

Gaffney, why do you post such long gibberish? Is it too much to ask for a condensed version?

[jgaffney]

Oct 13, 2008 21:39:26 GMT -5 Mink said:

Gaffney, why do you post such long gibberish? Is it too much to ask for a condensed version?

You disparaged the original article, since I lifted it from Michelle Malkin's website. By posting the equivalent article from The Hill, I was showing you that it was true, not just something that Malkin cooked up. If it was too many words for you, let me know and I'll post a condensed version. You have to rely on me, however, to pick the important parts from the article.

You may also want to look here, or here, or here. None of these links come from MichelleMalkin.com. Or, Wikipedia.