A recent poll shows that the 13 states that have competitive Senate races in 2010, support the bill by 64 percent to 26 percent.

Could be a bigger democratic majority, depending on this.

Tell my Senators not to be stupid? We're talking about Patty "Tennis Shoes" Murray and Maria Cant(think)well. Might as well tell the Sun to stop being so warm.

A great thinker once said "Stupid is as stupid does."

What if the voters decide they want big government?

Call Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein? Good luck with that.

It's too late, they're already extraordinarily stupid.

this would be a great time for our govt to work as designed... let the GOP exercise its newfound concern about runaway spending, and let the dems work out how to manage the very real crisis. go team

Peabody, I wish your comments could actually become reality. Unfortunately they don't include any consideration for greed, self-sevice, not paying taxes, etc.

those pitfalls are recognized of course. now would truly be a good time for bipartisanship. no trillion dollar spending spree could possibly be anywhere near perfect and will carry some flaws like you mention, but i feel that without some large-scale intervention, the banking system will take us all down very hard

I couldn't agree with #2 more (Tell my Senators not to be stupid? We're talking about Patty "Tennis Shoes" Murray and Maria Cant(think)well. Might as well tell the Sun to stop being so warm.)... as they are my Senators as well.
But none the less I called & emailed them again. I email them all the time and always receive a nice little form letter reply - telling me they hope all is well in Camas.
Hopefully there is more sense in the other Senators and this pork package won't pass.

Yeah, and spending a couple of hundred million on condoms or spending 50 million on Elephant Dung Virgin Mary's or hundres of millions on ATV trails will surely save us from the banking system...a banking system that has been steady and no longer shaking from large scale failures or fears of failure since the last infusion of cash they got. 42% and falling...Dems are well into the minority on this.

the less pork the better, but as for the banking system, its still experiencing a clearly evident liquidity crisis. that would eventually result in a meltdown that we're currenly only avoiding on the confidence that govt loans will be forthcoming. you cant have a healthy economy without a healthy banking system

None of which is addressed by the TRILLION DOLLAR spending spree. No matter how many times you repeat it, it's still just a spending spree. Pray tell us exactly how renovating government buildings will solve the "liquidity crisis". Bonus points if you can come up with a non-laughable reason that it will do so better than simply cutting taxes on investment and letting "the rich" solve the problem by injecting their currently idle cash into the system.

42% and falling.

The era of fiscal conservatism died in the Bush years and has now been buried.
http://www.rightklik.net/

I know how to infuse mor emoney into the government. Fiorce the IRS to audit all the Senators and Congresspersons and don't cut them any slack. 535 x $200K per average = $107M just to start......

falze - im not a dem and those approval ratings arent something im interested in. the vast bulk of the money is targeted at exactly that problem, the liquidity crisis. put money into the banking system so that they can afford to lend while still upholding the regulatory requirements. thats the number one problem here and the one that will be the lynchpin in any scenario. if you want to see catastophic financial collapse in the US, let the banking system fail. if you want to see a protracted decline in the power of the dollar and of the US at large, let the current boondoggle drive the global poles of power offshore

for the banks, its a loan. its not a giveaway

Didn't say you were. Don't really care, frankly. When was the last time the financial pages were worring about collapsing financials? Been quite a while now, relatively. And you clearly haven't read the bill or you wouldn't say that about "the vast bulk of the money". Knowing this, there's no reason to bother trying to lure you back under your bridge.

Last week it looked like Republicans were returning to their fiscal conservative roots when House Republicans voted unanimously against the sham stimulus bill.

This is where you made your mistake. You still think that Republicans are fiscal conservatives. You should know by now that when they appear that way, it's only for political expediency (i.e., a mechanism for bashing Democrats), and they'll revert to their borrow-and-spend ways as soon as the opportunity presents itself. (And even while the Republican Congress was opposing the plan, the Republican governors were begging them to support it.) It's not surprising to see Republicans embrace more spending, as long as it's their spending. What's surprising is how long it's taking those on the right to figure this out.

Sorry, Peabs -

The FIRST bailout was for liquidity - the infamous TARP that nobody tracked, nobody verified, and nobody benchmarked for success. I'll dare you to find ANY gummint dimwit that has ANY analysis on expected benefit to dollars spent.

Here's the thing - the gummint is proposing the spend the equivalent of $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. We and our kids will be footing the bill for decades.

Are you that willing to take a $4K loan and hand it to a bunch of clowns that don't even pay their own taxes, and TRUST them to make the right decisions? Make that a $16K loan for a family of 4...are you anxious to give up a new car so our Congress-tards can spend your dough?

Call your Senators and tell them not to be stupid?

I "live" in ILLinois.

D(T)urbin........Burris......hahahaha..damn!

no i havent read the bill yet, which i understand was recently made available online

i thought handout checks were a terrible idea when bu$h did them and i would certainly feel the same way now, especially since the tighter the economic climate, the less likely it is those dollars will get productively spent rather than saved

pea[brain]3000 - "for the banks, its a loan. its not a giveaway"

Funny "loan", when some of the cash was spent to purchase chinese banks.

My senator is John Kerry. *cries*

[skid]marc - its still a loan. i much prefer US buying chinese banks rather than other way around

How about Bank Of America hosting a Super Bowl Party in Tampa. We must make sure, as good citizens, that the banks can continue in this lifestyle. It is for the good of the country. ww

pea[brain]3000 - "i much prefer US buying chinese banks rather than other way around"

Oh, how not so shocking that you would twist the reality.

The bank bailout was in no way designed or meant as a financial vehicle for them to invest in anything of foreign origin.

Its main, and only reason for existence was to shore up the credit market and take some pressure off the slumping housing market.

[skid]marc - you act like they did something irresponsible when you in fact have no idea (well if that doesnt sound like [skid]marc...)

i myself worked at a co that was having severe financial problems and was about to go under, and what did we do? bought a competing company that was going nowhere. why? because they had a strong cash position but a weak market position. it prevented bankruptcy and today the co is still around and doing well

you want normal business practices to grind to a halt simply because govt loans are involved?hmmmmm