In Weekly Address, President Says Stimulus Plan Needed to Avoid "National Catastrophe"

Wow, all these comments do a great job of illustrating how uninformed the American people are on just about everything.

Everyone arguing back and forth, this ...ism that ...ism Republican this, Democrat that, citing propaganda as sources to back up pointless arguments.

Nobody's perfect, but FWIW:

If you are a Republican, support Ron Paul. If you are Democrat, support Kucinich. Be good to each other, its going to be a long Depression.

And read “war is a racket’ is by Smedley Butler. Google it up, it’s a short read.

Pray for peace. The life you save may be your own.

"The official toll is that we're losing 500,000 jobs a month, and its been doing that for the last several months. Before then, we were losing jobs at a somewhat slower rate." Posted by: Mike Bentley

This spending plan won't prevent you from losing your job if your company can't afford to keep you and it won't get your job back for you if the company can't afford to hire you back. At best, this bill will offer you a job on a road crew or building windmills sometime next year. But when that project ends, your job ends too.

Where have I heard those words before?

Oh yeah! George W. Bush. Some change?

I just saw in a Latin newspaper that GM plans to use 1 billion of the bailout money in it's Brazil Operations. WOW, I guess we are more concerned with stimlating the Latin America economy than our own. Way to Go GM, way to go Congress! Give them a little more money to shore up their China and Mexico operations as well.

oh its bad out there in my home town of 20,000. 2000 jobs lost in last 6 month projected anothre 7 hundred in next couple months....all this could have been avoided but bush though things were strong atleast the fundamentals. so sad how the gop destroyed america.

What I hate about Republicans, they would watch the country disintegrate rather than agree on any stimulus package. This should have been passed a long time ago, and it shouldn't be partisan politics, USE YOUR HEAD, wouldn't at least ONE Republican agree with the Bailout, if he wasn't TOLD to disagree?

Thank you George Bush. President Obama is using exact same tactics, SCARE the American public. President Obama a man of change and hope does not resort to fearful words. How about deleting frisbee parks and all the other pork. I want to know how many jobs will be generated and when...No Bull Just Facts.I am a nurse living in a cold house because of cost of heating/ How about President Obama not waste fuel campaigning and stay in his new home helping us poor folk.

RED ALERT: Smoking Gun, Chicago Style????

Search for video titled Smoking Gun: Democrat Insider Says "Obama Has Secret Plan to Fund a Patronage System"

This blog won't let me give you the URL.

I believe it. Listen particularly to the last line the guy says.

The official toll is that we're losing 500,000 jobs a month, and its been doing that for the last several months. Before then, we were losing jobs at a somewhat slower rate. If you look at the chart you'll see that the rate appears to be accelerating with a purpose. This does not look like it will correct, it looks like it has enough strength to continue and it may even pick up speed. What will provoke the job loss rate to slow down? Tax cuts work really well when business is excellent; when business is down, tax cuts are obviously less effective since taxed revenues are down, in some cases way down, but they will help. However, government has been deficit spending for a very long time, so very soon you'll be looking at reducing government spending to match the cuts. The stimulus package must be aimed very well to have the desired effect, and spending money on infrastructure that's been neglected for decades is an insightful a way to do it. One way or the other, government has to get smaller after this.

Dave Wrote:

" "if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe." - If this is true, why hasn't Obama spent any of the $350 B he got from Congress in the beginning of January? Why is he going to Camp David, to elementary schools, to Wilmington retreats instead of coming up with a plan to spend the $350 B he already has?"

Dave, the Administration is comming up with ideas to spend the remaining money as we speak. Geithner is expected to present his plans for the money on Tuesday. From what we know right now, $50bn will be used to shore up the paralyzed housing market, and that Geithner and his team have big plans to overhaul the new TARP program.

"if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe." - If this is true, why hasn't Obama spent any of the $350 B he got from Congress in the beginning of January? Why is he going to Camp David, to elementary schools, to Wilmington retreats instead of coming up with a plan to spend the $350 B he already has?

You know, by the time reepubs and dems fight it out, the American people could have taken a share of all this bailout money, enough to pay off their personal debt, mortgages, creditcards,etc., and stimulated the economy better than any self-centered politician could (or would) hope to. That's how you stimulate the economy..........give it to the people that spend!

On George's show this morning, George Will made one point that makes a lot of sense: for Democrats when the government is spending money, that’s stimulus. The President said something very similar the other night when he was pep-rallying the democratic caucus. That tends to be different from my understanding of stimulus - I tend to think of stimulus as money the government spends to boost the economy in a tangible way. Using the military as an example: if the Navy needs a jet that creates jobs at the factory and the suppliers of those factories and the suppliers of those suppliers and so on and so forth. It tends to be a kind of organic response that results from a kind of artificial insemination of sorts. It is like the government throws down a bunch of seeds and fertilizer and we get a wide range of benefits from the new crop. There is a built in expectation of an oversupply of benefit or, at minimum there is a break even point that makes the money spent justifiable. If the Navy loses the plane they order another one and the process starts all over again. (Using bombs is a better example) When I read the Bill and its many provisions I was struck by what I viewed to be a bunch of things that did not meet this test. We collectively refer to this as "earmarks." And, based on the President's telling "there have never been a Bill that came through Congress that didn't have earmarks." (This comment was a surprise after he vowed to veto any Bills that had earmarks during the Presidential debates.) The poster boy for these seemingly unproductive projects are things like the Frisbee Park in Austin or the millions slated for new sewer lines in St. Louis. The list goes on and on and the more I read the more it appeared that the greater part of this Bill were earmarks that, though likely to be good projects to support do not appear to be the stuff that meets my test of what constitutes stimulus. It all made a lot of sense after George Will made that observation. If you follow the money from there (like any good detective) and throw in that the Democrats feel entitled because they have the White House and the Congress and were shunned a few short years ago by their Republican counterparts you have the makings for a rampage. They want this stuff because they want it and they are including it because they can. And, if you believe that anytime the government spends money (regardless of where or how it is spent) then this is all the more justification that what they are doing is right and will fix our collective economic woes. I found George Will's observation very helpful in understanding why otherwise intelligent people are insisting on what one would think are appropriations in what is supposed to be an economic stimulus (a la my definition above) plan. I just thought I would mention this; it made a lot of sense why the Democrats are dead set on loading this package up with what appears to be some of their favorite sons' pet projects (from the "one man's earmark is another man's pet project"). The other thing that George Will said is that none of these guys have any idea if any of this will work or not - it is a pure crap shoot. So, Guess we can keep arguing about it and I sort of like all this (cable like) chatter - I like to read your comments and hear your thoughts. But, if George Will is right (and even the most liberal of you have to admit that George Will is a smart guy) we need to get on with the stimulus part of this Bill (whatever that means) and do it with some swiftness (even if your pet project didn't make the cut).

** "President Obama then warned, "if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe".**** Well my oh my, isn't this the politics of fear that Obama rallied against? This sure didn't take long, did it?

I'm just curious as to what happens when (and if) we do get the alleged jobs? What happens when people from the hills of Eastern Kentucky, and other states like us, have to drive hundreds of miles to get a job under this stimulus plan? This isn't going to affect us in the least. Small towns like mine will continue to suffer. And even if it does work out, it will only last for a short period of time. What happens when the work is done? People go home and, once again, file for unemployment. Mail us a check. It'll stimulate the economy better than having to file for unemployment and bankruptcy in the end.

Interesting. Tried to post a link to Senator Lamar Alexander's website where there are copies of his recent speeches to the Senate describing why he opposes this so-called stimulus plan and proposes some legitimate and less costly alternatives that potentially could save the country money, put more money in the American people's pockets and help the economy, but it was deleted. I've seen others deleted as well. Guess that's the perogative of Mr. Tapper. But a link to a Senator's web site is different than a link to a far right or left wing organization, IMHO.

Obama is a laughing stock. He's fallen off a cliff in just 2 1/2 weeks. He wanted 80 Senate votes and he has to pull out all the stops to just get 60. What a joke this guy is. He has totally misread the electorate's dislike for Bush as a mandate for his socialist polices that the country does NOT want.

If they are successful in cramming this crap sandwich down our throats, we will see huge GOP wins in 2010. W's follies will be a long-lost memory and the pain and suffering of Obama's trillion-dollar kickback to his base will be front of mind.

To our liberal friends: enjoy the next two years. The sun is already setting on Hope. T = -715 days and counting.

AD for president.

Well said and so true. The only problem with that plan is that it would strengthen the country, economy, and the workers of American and it would weaken the politicians and the bottom feeders that feed off of hate and fear.

This bills needs to be pared down to (a) emergency aid to states and (b) shovel-ready infrastructure projects including shoring up the ailing electrical grids and existing new-energy pursuits.

Guiding principles should be: what will stop the bleeding immediately, and what will constitute investments in long-term new industries? Immediate crisis intervention in state shortfalls: will stop massive layoffs (which would mean more people losing their homes, loss of revenue, and further downward spiral) while buying states a little time to restructure. Shovel-ready: No time to allocate money and then cook up make-work projects. Needed, ready-to-go projects only, with contracts going to local existing businesses and not adding to government payrolls.

Everything else on that bill is fluff and should be cut out.

At the heart of this crisis: the fundamentals of the economy are broken. Most incomes do not cover living expenses (safe housing, for example), and credit has been used as a safety net rather than borrowing for a specific one-time need. The income-expense ratio for most people is unsustainable -- a major reason for this credit crisis. We also cannot power an economy on mostly low-paying service industries alone. Our old-style manufacturing is a ghost of its former self. We also need to move away from being a net importer of food. We can't continue depend on other countries for our basic needs. We need innovation in new industries at home. That will require a mix of science and industrial revitalization, not to mention education to prepare our own home-grown people to compete in such work. And maybe just maybe such new industry would also result in other countries' demand for these new products and thus help even out our trade imbalance...

If we as a country can diversity our economy (multiple strands of retail and low-paying services do not constitute a diversified economy), revenue income for government increases as a result. At the same time, we need to take a long hard look at what services are needed from government and gradually spin off everything else into the private sector (not suddenly, as sudden government employee layoffs could cause massive economic disaster and too much human suffering in the short run). New income-generating industries are the only way to increase revenues without tax increases. That, plus bringing government down from its bloated size by spinning off the nonessentials is needed to reduce the federal deficit. And maybe this will head off a devaluation of the dollar as well.

Dear V for Vendetta.

best case scenario for Republicans.

Obama's plan works..... 1-2 years after the next Republican president takes office.