Stimulus bill ready to put money to work - but will it?

  • Article by: KEVIN DIAZ , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 28, 2009 - 11:33 PM

Minnesota's House delegation split on the bill, with the four Democrats who backed it seeing it as a needed shot in the arm and three Republicans and one Democrat saying it costs too much while doing too little.

  • 187
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
stribispantsJan. 28, 0910:23 PM

oh give me a break. That line is being used to justify everything these days. We all care about the kids Betty, but if this has anything to do with "the kids," its a lot more about saddling them with debt for the rest of their lives and gutlessly kicking the can down the road for their generation to deal with. Pathetic. Absolutely disgraceful.

logical123Jan. 28, 0910:38 PM

A couple hundred million for STD prevention. Not that's a stimulus bill. I haven't seen any interviews. Can they keep a straight face?

noinkJan. 28, 0910:47 PM

The state of Minnesota is to get $4.5 billion in this bill and how much will the tax payers of Minnesota have to pay back in taxes on this bill over the long run. I'm sure we will not be gettiing our money's worth.

tink0077Jan. 28, 0911:14 PM

I'd rather have the 800 billion and have a depression than spend the 800 billion and have a depression. That's the same thing we said about the TARP bailout. We were right. Quit mortgaging my future with an adjustable rate, interest only, no money down debt instrument. Only politicans can think it's good to raise spending and cut taxes at the same time. When will we wake up. Congress' approval rating was between 10% and 15% during the election we re-elected them.

ranger1873Jan. 28, 0911:25 PM

Come on, Trib ... why didn't you ask this type of question before you helped get this clown elected President? Oh, I forgot ... didn't fit the talking points.

BucklawJan. 28, 0911:26 PM

I'm not able to post! So surely now I will be able to post. Testing...

Anyway, wake up people...the conservatives are misleading you. Prosperity follows a stronger government investment. When government spending is a larger part of GDP growth is excelerated, not held back.

rammerJan. 28, 0911:40 PM

OUTRAGIOUS! How any reasonable person can look at the specifics of this horrendous legislation and justify it is beyond me. The leftwing has waited and waited just for the right moment to unleash its claws and the credit dry up of late 2008 was just the perfect fit. I dare each of you to take ten minutes and look at the specifics of the House's garbage laden bill and not agree with me that the democrats leading the house are out of their minds. I have never been more disgusted with Washington DC than I was this afternoon when I learned this mockery of democracy passed. I not only contacted my democratic Congressman; I made a vow that I will do everything in my power to see that he and other's who supported this get thrown out in 2010.

BucklawJan. 28, 0911:45 PM

Has anyone noticed how often conservatives argue against experts...environment, climate, energy, education, health care...and how they are always wrong? Add finance and the economy to the list.

You can start almost at random to read papers, books, and articles of academic and mainstream economists and they will present positions almost perfectly opposed to the dogma spouted by conservatives.

Most economists argue that cuts are not the way to recover from a deep recession. They also argue that tax cuts for high income earners is not the way to stimulate the economy.

Conservative pessimism simply simply does not stand to the facts. Ronald Reagan -- the great naysayer -- and the Americans who worship him, have incorrectly embraced the idea that government spending and programs harms the economy. That simply is not true. In fact, as government has decreased as a percentage of GDP, wages have stagnated, infrastructure has deteriorated, and social well being has declined. Just look at what over 20 years of Reaganomic economic policy has done for us.

When government spending has been a higher proportion of GDP, the United States has enjoyed much greater productivity and prosperity. It is a myth that the United States cannot afford and will not benefit from more government spending.

rammerJan. 28, 0911:52 PM

Bucklaw, provide us any evidence that Keynsian economics works. It didn't in the 1970s; in fact government policies that we are adhearing too now (huge expenditures/federal controls etc.) set us spiraling downward. There has been a growing number of people today who recognize that FDR's policies prolonged our recovery, which was aided by WWII. We're still dealing with things like the Tennessee Authority and other programs that simply never went away. We are in an economic contraction brought on my a housing bubble that was stronly aided by Fannie/Freddie and previous Washington DC policies. Mortgage backed securities devaluating lead to the collapse of Lehman and others. Folks, in Q2 of 2008, our GDP was actually decent and it was still positive by Q3. Don't fool yourselves, spending tens of billions of dollars on global warming and paying $450,000,000 to fine tune 42,000 Native American properties (for energy efficiency) are just a small sample of this "stimulus" package. The federal government lead us into this mess and is truly unqualified to lend expertise on how to get us out of it. The experts? Try opening your eyes.

Dave21Jan. 29, 0912:07 AM

Sure it will work. Just like rain dances causes rain, rabbits foot bring good luck, and voting for Barry Obama makes us safer.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters