Understood. I summarized it into 2 words to prevent expanding these details and to avoid what others dubbed a "wall of text"... but my point is NO funding overseas is going to stimulate our local economy. The current price tag for it is $290,000,000 and that's the cost of 6 of the planes that this thread started over. Reversing Bush's far-right-wing decision with a far-left-wing policy is a special interest that belongs to the democratic party alone... that's unrelated to our local economy and should not be porked into the bill. I don't care what happens with planned or unplanned pregnancies inside of this country or out of it, it has no affect on putting Detroit back to work.

 

Citi can't spend 50m but the fed can spend 816b? :rofl:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_161654.html

 

AFAIK, the funding of the program is still the same as when Bush was in power. We're just not saying that we'll limit which groups that get it based on a nonsensical metric.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28812519

And yes, actually, proper birth control and sex education in this country would do WONDERS. Anyways, Obama had NOT authorized additional money for this, and who knows what will happen when the current administration's financial review is completed.

Alright. this thread is just getting too stupid for me.

 

exactly.

 

Honestly, do you think I'm going to click an MSNBC link? Now I know why you think the $290,000,000 line item for it is NOT additional money. In order for it to be voted on again in the stimulus bill, it must be an entitlement.

 

It's not the thread that is too stupid

 

The House measure had been estimated to cost $825 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office updated the bill's price tag to $816 billion after accountants recalculated its cost. That total could still rise, however, if the House passes a Democratic amendment that would add $3 billion for mass transit.

It already includes about $550 billion in spending and roughly $275 billion in tax cuts in hopes of spurring the economy and helping those directly affected. Much of the spending would be for items such as health care, jobless benefits, food stamps and other programs that benefit victims of the downturn

god forbid they spend it on the people and not the corporations

 

...and I'm a democrat! :noes: I wouldn't say I agree politically so much as logically. There's only so much you can pin on an individual leader. Although there are specific things Bush has done that I despise, I don't fall into the "Bush did a horrible job, just look at our country" boat.

I'll read up and post in later... I actually have work to do today

 

Yes, those are the people they need to spend it on.

 

The people who have to spend money to survive? Yeah not assisting those who actually put back money into the economy, gotcha. h: