Democrats pushing Stimulus-palooza, Part II

By Michelle Malkin  •  July 16, 2008 08:37 AM

Allow me to say: See, I told you so.

The Republicans beat back the Democrats’ stimulus-palooza push in February. But they’re desperate, they’re out of ideas, and they’re back with another $50 billion plan guaranteed to be loaded with pork. It’s not about stimulating the economy, of course. It’s about doing something about their plunging approval ratings. Time for the GOP to beat them back again:

House Democrats want to inject at least $50 billion into the economy through another economic-stimulus bill, which is likely to include a second round of checks for middle-income people.

A second measure probably wouldn’t have the same bipartisan momentum as the first $168 billion bill, which was passed in February. That legislation was the product of negotiations between the Bush administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio).

Many of the proposals being floated by Democrats this time are ones President George W. Bush and other Republicans rejected in the last go-round. So far, the White House hasn’t backed a second stimulus bill. Ms. Pelosi said Democrats plan to work with the president on any legislation.

The bill, which would likely include spending on road projects and aid to states, isn’t expected to come up in the House until September, but Democrats met Tuesday with a handful of economic experts to discuss possible items for the legislation.

Posted in: fiscal stimulus

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. What, We Weren’t Stimulated Enough The First Time? « Beltway Snark

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #377076
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am, twiggman said:

    How bout we spend 50 billion on some drilling you idiots…

  2. #377078
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:43 am, tarpon said:

    Anything to avoid talking about the real problem, DRILLING FOR MORE OIL.

  3. #377080
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am, rambler said:

    Cut taxes, cut taxes, CUT TAXES YOU MORONS!!!!! Anything less is income redistribution. Next thing the gov will do is hire more people to send out more rebate checks.

  4. #377081
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Oh good, another spending plan that will be paid for with borrowed money. That is just what this country needs, more debt.

    Many of us got in that ugly debt situation right out of school. Hopefully we learned our lesson and did not do that again. Too bad the cartoon characters in Congress, and the foolish souls who elect them, never do seem to learn. That was the nice thing about the “broken government” after 1996; neither side would let the other go on a spending spree.

    Gridlock has its advantages.

  5. #377083
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:47 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am, twiggman said:
    How bout we spend 50 billion on some drilling you idiots…

    Would it really cost that much to drill these idiots?

    Oh, did you mean for oil? Senior moment here, sorry twiggman.

  6. #377084
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:48 am, On-my-soap-box said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:45 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:
    Oh good, another spending plan that will be paid for with borrowed money. That is just what this country needs, more debt.

    Agreed. But we can always print more money. That’ll solve the problem.

    Oh, wait…

  7. #377094
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:55 am, ajmontana said:

    Hold the phone Mexico will want some of that pie.

  8. #377099
    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:59 am, meatpieandtatters said:

    What’s wrong with giving back what they wantonly confiscated?

    Less money in the hands of the Botoxed Bozo is a good thing.

  9. #377105
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am, twiggman said:

    Hey ArizonaNeanderthal…If for 50 billion we could get rid of Nancy, and Harry plus all of the other idiots in congress it would be money well spent…Don’t ya think ? …

  10. #377106
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am, jencab said:

    What the democrats do best: Spend, spend, spend the people’s money.

  11. #377107
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:09 am, swmbo said:

    I know they can take parts of a brain out of a skull, but can they transplant brains in someone?

    Any conservative Brain Surgeons out there willing to give this a try. Here is my list of brainless patients to start on:
    Pelosi
    Reid
    Obama
    Durbin
    McCain
    Schumer
    Dodd
    ….. and the list goes on and on and on

  12. #377108
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am, twiggman said:

    swmbo…your list would be a lot shorter if you just went with who in congress DID NOT need this service…

  13. #377110
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am, torabora said:

    I wanna ‘nother check. I spent mine already! Gimme gimme gimme

  14. #377114
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am, wrcnossen said:

    I wonder if it is possible for a negative approval rating? Keep trying, you morons!

  15. #377115
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am, mngirl said:

    The Republicans better stand their ground on this one, if the Dems are finally understanding that tax cuts (they prefer to call them Stimulus- its the same thing, a refund of taxes we’ve already paid = tax cut) stimulate the economy then why not do some permanent tax cuts?

    Only a Democrat led Congress would administer a Tax Cut in this ridiculous, bureaucratic, expensive manner.

  16. #377118
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am, twiggman said:
    Hey ArizonaNeanderthal…If for 50 billion we could get rid of Nancy, and Harry plus all of the other idiots in congress it would be money well spent…Don’t ya think ? …

    There are less expensive options, but one does not wish to appear exteme, does one?

    So yes.

  17. #377123
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am, DesertLover said:

    wrcnossen

    When they hit zero I would think that the usual 3% margin of error would put them in the negative realm of possibility … :lol:

  18. #377134
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am, swmbo said:

    Good Point twiggman, not to mention the wear and tear on my keyboard.

  19. #377154
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am, Die Hippie, Die said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:47 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Would it really cost that much to drill these idiots?

    Not much AZ. We have the technology.

  20. #377156
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am, mchristian said:

    rambler said: Anything less is income redistribution.

    Isn’t that the point, or is it buying votes? I get mixed up.

  21. #377157
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:58 am, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Well, the first one didn’t put a dent as a “stimulus” in the economy. What makes them think another handout will?

  22. #377163
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am, Irish Rose said:

    Desperately trying to improve their miserable “approval” ratings and salvage their political careers, no doubt.

    Dear Nancy,

    Get a clue, we don’t want your stinkin’ stimulus check! We want you to tell your pet lobbyists to take a hike, use that money to get our domestic oil refineries up and running again, and start drilling for oil NOW. If you simply MUST spend my childrens’ money, then I expect you to invest it in long term solutions, not bandaid solutions.

    Signed,

    A former Democrat who wouldn’t give you a vote today if my life depended on it

  23. #377165
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am, Irish Rose said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:15 am, wrcnossen said:

    I wonder if it is possible for a negative approval rating? Keep trying, you morons!

    Is that a single digit approval rating that I see on the horizon?

  24. #377176
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am, expres12 said:

    Yet another $50 billion U.S. dollar buying power dilution.

    Like high commodity prices, like oil, wheat, flour and rice? Then let’s keep on digging the debt hole.

    The clueless rule in Washington.

  25. #377184
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am, babbledabble said:

    Well now those awful oil companies already have plenty of land on which to drill & they aren’t using it, so why should we give them more? If you don’t believe it just ask Harry & Nancy.
    sarc/off

  26. #377186
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am, madchef said:

    Hey, just because bribes work on congressmen doesn’t mean they will work on voters Nan, Chris & Harry.

  27. #377195
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am, Wyatt Earp said:

    So, they scoffed at the Bush tax cut, but their stimulus package is a good thing?

    My brain hurts.

  28. #377205
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am, hawkeye54 said:

    On July 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am, twiggman said:
    How bout we spend 50 billion on some drilling you idiots.

    Im sure it wouldn’t cost nearly that much for drilling the idiots in Congress. The best Marine DI could be borrowed for drilling these miserable creatures into shape!

    Heaven knows most Congress critters could use discipline all across the board, of which they currently have none. The stimulus-palooza scheme is certainly prime evidence.

  29. #377220
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am, Bachbone said:

    Ross Perot was ahead of his time. Remember the “giant sucking sound” phrase from his campaign? Well, it’s now coming from the 300 million teats of the federal cow Congress has primed with “stimulus” funds, and both Democrats and Republicans will be sure to see doesn’t run out of ‘milk’ from now on. The socialism farm is just over the horizon. Bah! Humbug!

  30. #377223
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am, Alphonse said:

    Used to be the Democrats were the big spenders and the Republicans a moderating influence.

    Since Reagan, I’d give the Democrats my approval for being more fiscally responsible. Reagan was for much of his life a Democrat, and it shows, since all he did was change the method of feeding at the public trough from collecting benefits from the government to not paying taxes in the first place. Both methods of feeding at the public trough are fiscally irresponsible and lead to deficits and inflation, but runaway spending combined with not paying taxes is more liberal than tax-and-spend in my view.

    I prefer the old definition of conservatism as a belief in small efficient government to the new Rove definition of being against abortion, for runaway spending, and too cheap to pay taxes.

  31. #377229
    On July 16th, 2008 at 10:58 am, rambler said:

    Mchristian, I think “buying votes” is more pc.

  32. #377265
    On July 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am, Azygos said:

    Ross Perot was ahead of his time. Remember the “giant sucking sound” phrase from his campaign? Well, it’s now coming from the 300 million teats of the federal cow Congress has primed with “stimulus” funds, and both Democrats and Republicans will be sure to see doesn’t run out of ‘milk’ from now on. The socialism farm is just over the horizon. Bah! Humbug!

    Not 300 million as I don’t get a “rebate” of the 50% plus that I pay in taxes. Why is it good to take from me and give to people who pay no taxes but tax cuts are bad? How much on the dollar do the idiots in congress spend to give my hard earned dollars to welfare cheats?

  33. #377276
    On July 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am, concretebob said:

    Pelosi: We have to do something about our approval numbers and these stupid little cretins who keep emailing me about the oil companies.
    Reid: Lets just throw some more money at them and maybe they’ll shut up until after November.

  34. #377340
    On July 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am, supersean said:

    what ever happened to the sound minimal government policies of the true conservative?

    It is not just the democrats promoting this bailout & stimulus garbage… when is someone in Congress going to propose that any government entity that performs the be spun off into a pure private enterprise. Why are we forking over # to Fannie Mae & Amtrak? Isnt this the job of the private sector? I’d rather be taxed less and be able to spend my $$ on what I want when I want

  35. #377359
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, Gabe said:

    Tarpon said:

    Anything to avoid talking about the real problem, DRILLING FOR MORE OIL.

    Exactly! Has anyone noticed how the price of oil plunged just with President Bush’s announcement that he would lift the off-shore oil ban? Just the prospect of a greater supply of oil lowered the price.

    Yet the MSM has spun it that oil prices are dropping because of a “bad economy.”

    These people are shameless, and liberals will NEVER drill and keep waiting for Republicans to avert us from economic disaster. . .and then the Dems take credit for it.

    As others have stated above, we don’t need a stimulus check, we need energy independence with drilling for oil everywhere we can in America. That will be a long term stimulus to the economy.

  36. #377391
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm, cicerokid said:

    Wanna see the price of oil go down some more? Release about half of the strategic reserve, then refill it with some cheaper stuff in about 12 months.

  37. #377394
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, dan708 said:

    I’d rather see them pay the debt down by $50 billion. But that would require sepnding CUTS, something which simply doesn’t happy in an election year.

  38. #377395
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, dan708 said:

    happen – sorry!

  39. #377402
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Silkyinfamous said:

    Are they serious? The government is so messed up they’re sending us checks again. I thought the idea of government was suppose to tax and spend.Not give back.We elect them to represent us and not just give us money. I mean really is this logical at all, is our senators and reps so stupid, all they can figure out is to send us checks. Well with the mortgage fiasco obviously most of us aren’t spending our money wise to begin with.

    Lets use that money and start DRILLING.

  40. #377439
    On July 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, Blind_Mule said:

    Many of the proposals being floated by Democrats this time are ones President George W. Bush and other Republicans rejected in the last go-round

    This time? how about everytime, this is the typical clown congress M.O. they continually bring up the same things that have been defeated over and over and over and you get the idea. :roll:

  41. #377547
    On July 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm, Wyatt Earp said:

    Blind_Mule – All we need now is a small car for Reid, Pelosi, et al to jump out of!

  42. #377559
    On July 16th, 2008 at 1:54 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    I thought the idea of government was suppose to tax and spend prudently.Not give back.We elect them to represent us and not just give us back some of our own money.

    There, fixed it. And it makes no difference unless Congress actually makes significant spending cuts and makes current tax rates and cuts permanent.

  43. #377904
    On July 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    So instead of lowering taxes, they just want to give money back to us with the occasional check. That’s lazy. Lower-income people benefit in the short-term, while higher-income people benefit not at all. Cutting taxes would benefit everyone. Can’t have that.

  44. #378021
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:52 pm, fulldroolcup said:

    I sense a lot of tail-chasing here. Sure, if congress borrows more money to “stimulate” the economy, it accomplishes squat in the long run, making our kids pay more in the long term..

    But an across-the-board tax cut will NOT help much UNLESS government spending is slashed. Congress will just…..borrow the money…to maintain its spenidng levels.

    (and oh yes, Alphonse, it’s CONGRESS that does the borrowing and budget approval, not the GOP or the Dems. The growth of government, and of deficits, has been going on for fifty years, no matter who’s in power (but the Dems held the “power of the purse” for most of those years). The only time we’ve moved into substantial surplus territory was during the Clinton years, but that’s because the GOP forced tax cuts AND welfare reform onto Der Schlick, against the wishes of the Dems.)

    Anyone want to see the ugly truth can go here:

    http://perotcharts.com/challenges/

    Yeah, I know it’s a Perot production, but the data and conclusions are unassailable (and Perot doesn’t blame either political party).

  45. #378024
    On July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Well, I got the first one right after my lawnmower broke so I ran out and stimulated Wal-Mart by getting a new one. Much better than the govenment keeping it and giving a raise to the National Endowment for the Arts or Planned Parenthood. If they send me another one I’ll put it to good use. :)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Stimulus Jobs Inflation Map

November 16, 2009 07:15 PM by Michelle Malkin

31 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

The Stimulus Jobs Inflation Index

October 30, 2009 10:50 AM by Michelle Malkin

67 Comments | 6 Trackbacks

Stimulus efficiency success story of the day

October 28, 2009 11:32 AM by Michelle Malkin

22 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Wealth redistribution watch: Cash for carts

October 19, 2009 02:22 PM by Michelle Malkin

28 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Put this on an Olympic scorecard: 9.8

October 2, 2009 09:57 AM by Michelle Malkin

41 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

The National Endowment for Obama

September 22, 2009 03:48 PM by Michelle Malkin

51 Comments | 2 Trackbacks


Categories: fiscal stimulus



Mudville Gazette

» War costs money (2)

Green Room

» Going Un-Framed?

Mudville Gazette

» Surrender, he whispered

Pundit & Pundette

» The rebirth of Rom Houben
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook