If the stimulus bill wins by party lines why should we offer ANY friggin' tax cuts for 'Pukes?

Obama has bent over backwards to give these guys taxs cuts. I support tax cuts for poor and working and even middle class but how does it make sense to give a tax cut to a business when the business isn't even making any money?

I say that if it looks like the Republicans are going to vote no en masse then we ought to go back and change the tax cuts for everyone but average individuals and take that money and put it into infrastructure.

I heard that there are "only" $80 billion in infrastructure. If this is true then Dems are missing an historic opportunity to lay the foundations for the next economic century. What happened to the days when we layed rural electric infrastructure, or built the interstate highway system, or incredibly hydroelectric projects. All these things gave us the tools to become a first world country. Now we need wind farms, mass transit, improved electricity transmission, etc. etc. Will we have enough?

Also like you said if the vote is party line, family planning should also go back in.

don't want any part of this package at all,no matter what Obama does. So down the road (if a depression is present)they will come out on top for the 2010 election - at least they think. And this means they will be looking for this to fail.The suggestion by Obama to not listen to Rush has had the opposite effect.

anything to "The Great Market God in the Volcanoe" mentality is why we let Bush and Paulson pull off the greatest heist in history. That 700 billion to wall street has done jack shit for the working man and all it did was to give golden parachutes and pay off the debts of those responsible for this mess. We either need to storm the Bastille or tell these obstructionsit Republican fucks to shut the fuck up and get out of the way so that we can save the country. Grrrr.....just thinking about some of the GOPers I heard on C span this am is making me mad.

Even Snowe was on MSNBC this morning talking about the changes that need to be made to the bill in order for Republicans to get on board. If we don't have her, then there's any number of other moderate Republicans and Democrats whose support we can't yet rely on.

It would look very, very bad for Obama to lose this in the Senate.

Doubt on!

Boxer's in the Senate. I was discussing the liklihood of this passing the Senate with no bipartisan support. Passage of the House was never in doubt due to the majority the Dems hold there and the non-requirement for a majority of 60.

If all the Dems vote for it - it passes.

It will be debated endlessly.

We only need a simple majority for that. Or, if they want to filibuster, we have two other options: let them stand and read from the collected works of Dickens for hours on end, or implement the nuclear option.

But wouldn't it look better to avoid this, if at all possible? Not to mention that bipartisan support strengthens the bill overall.

The problem is, the Republicans want less spending and for the Bush tax cuts to be made permanent. And that ain't gonna fly. We've given the the chance to be part of an effective bill, we've taken a few minor things out to get their support. The President has sat down with them and listened to their ideas, he's included some, and he's bringing leadership from both parties to to the White House later today for more discussions. The hand of bipartisanship has been extended, they just need to take it. I hope they will, but I'm not confident.

They simply aren't interested in strengthening this bill.

They won't vote for the stimulus bill but they won't want to be seen as obstructionists. There's no reason for the GOP to be bipartisan since they won't get the credit for a successful plan. The Republicans will allow a vote, vote against it, and hope it doesn't succeed so they'll have something to run on come 2010/2012.

I thought you were referring to the actual vote.

We only need 51 votes in the Senate then.

but the reason being used is filibusters

That, or we should use the nuclear option. I don't support the tax cuts for profitable businesses either - if they're gonna vote against it anyway, it should just be cut and replaced with more infrastructure spending. But there are ways to prevent a filibuster, and we should use them.

construction. Another $300-some billion in infrastructure investment/education/etc. $275 billion in tax-relief and tax-related items, most of which aimed at the middle class.

Okay maybe three or four... First, the 'tax cuts' in this stimulus do not resemble the Bush tax cuts, but just like the repubs love anything that says tax cut, some here hate anything that says tax cut. Personally, I like how the President stood up on the issue yesterday and said he wouldn't compromise on the lower end of this tax cut for the working poor. And doing this tax cut through payroll instead of a bigger one-time check, assures that these funds will get spent.

Second, this is the first time I've seen anybody claim that there is only $80 billion for infrastructure. I'd sure like to know the source of that propaganda. The reputable sources I have seen had reported that the tax relief portion of the package is about $275 billion and that infrastructure spending is more than that. Here is the breakdown (from CNN):

"Construction projects: $90 billion. Fund the rebuilding of crumbling roads and bridges, build clean water and flood control mechanisms and provide funding for mass transit systems.
Education: $142 billion. Rebuild thousands of schools by modernizing classrooms, labs and libraries. The plan would also increase funding for Pell Grants.
Renewable energy: $54 billion. Double production of alternative energy in the next three years. Weatherize low-income homes, modernize 75% of federal buildings and update the nation's electrical grid with a new, cost-efficient "smart" grid.
Health care records: $20 billion. Modernize the health care system by computerizing all of the nations' medical records in the next five years.
Science, research and technology: $16 billion. Invest in science facilities, research and instrumentation to create new industries, new jobs and medical breakthroughs. Expand broadband Internet access in rural and under served areas."

Those add up to $322 billion, if my math is correct. Maybe your source is trying to say that only the $90 billion listed above can be considered infrastructure. I would argue that rebuilding schools, modernizing housing and the electrical grid, modernizing medical record keeping and extending the web to under served areas, would have to be included at the very least.

Other monies are included to expand SCHIP, extend Cobra benefits to the unemployed and to help states cope with increased Medicaid costs. Of course states and municipalities will share by receiving funds for worthwhile infrastructure initiatives.

As is usual in things like this, opinions are clouded by whether or not the commenter's favorite provision is included or not.

I do agree with you on the tax cut stuff though. I don't at all hate anything with tax cut on its label. I'm all for cutting the taxes of the poor and working. I don't think anyone under $30,000 should pay ANY tax anywhere. I do know that these are not the kind of taxs cuts Bush had and it is Obama's responsibility to keep his promises on the tax cuts for working folks.

I was hoping, I guess, for a much bigger push of a "national emergency" level on the energy front. It seems to me that finally a party has the political capital to solve or close to solve this incredibly dangerous dependence on foreign oil. I was hoping for 300 or even 400 billion over ten years for hundreds if not thousands of wind farms, new hydro where feasible, solar farms in the SW, tons and tons of research money on increasing fuel efficiency, etc. Money to transfer buildings into green buildings en masse. In short, something that would finally, after decades of talking about it, begin to get us out of this energy mess. I think for the long term strategic health of our country nothing could be better.

There's no reason to give them anything if they give nothing in return.