The bill is still being amended I understand. What exactly we will see and not see is still up for debate in many of the contentious eras such as tax cuts , infrastructure spending, etc. It was seen back in the salad days of December by even conservative economists namely one Marty Feldstein who was supporting the financial stimulus and academic father of some of Obama economic advisors that Obama had a handle on what was necessary and what they spptted as necessary. That is not the case today.

Its all been reduced imho to an anology; yelling fire in the economic theater and telling us that the firemen coming to the rescue will provide plenty of water but they are blindfolded, so they’ll just spray the place hoping to put the fire out by sheer deluge.

And forgetting or conveniently ignoring the fact that the profligate use of water now means there will be even fewer choices in what later fires to fight because the water supply is exhausted and we have to count on borrowing water when the next fire erupts. ( we will need some economists are saying now that the next Tarp may top out at 1 tirllion, that’s a lot of friggin water).....


Obama says and I quote;” Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,".

Obama demands speed on stimulus - Yahoo! News


No, what happened was several rep.s finally got to sit down with dems and work on the bill in the senate ( note this didn’t happen in the house) and at the end of the day the 3 rinos, Spector Snowe and Collins decided they had done enough to throw a sop at some republicans constituencies they need in their states and do what comes natural to the rino.

The bill came out of the house at 830bn, hit 937 in the senate and now at 780 viola we have a “trimmed down” bill. I see.

That’s like the retailer who in august starts pushing prices up incrementally, then when the season hits drops the prices to were they were or close to in august and announces a “sale”....that bait and switch is as old as greek and roman politics.

Further-

As far as this goes;” "In the midst of our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people were hoping that Congress would begin to confront the great challenges we face. That was, after all, what last November's election was all about."

Obama demands speed on stimulus - Yahoo! News



NO, what November was about was what he said HE was all about, bi-partisanship and INFRASTRUCTURE spending, a balanced approach, what Mr. Feldstein signed on too, not overwhelming non productive entitlement grabs and payoffs, he keeps saying we are in the worst position we have been in since the depression, well then stop screaming fire, and govern like you mean it and govern according the principals you laid out.

Screaming fire becasue half the folks in your theater don't like the movie is not governing.


remember this-

JANUARY 7, 2009
Reagan Aide Backs Obama On Stimulus

Martin Feldstein is an unlikely Democrats' darling.
The onetime presidential adviser to Ronald Reagan might even be considered the least likely advocate of government spending to boost the U.S. economy.

But given present circumstances, the Harvard University economist has changed his mind. Mr. Feldstein will be featured Wednesday at a Democratic economic forum, along with Robert Reich, former labor secretary and longtime liberal. Democratic leaders now mention Mr. Feldstein's support when they discuss their economic recovery plan, criticized by some as a pricey grab-bag of liberal goodies.


"We're down to fiscal policy, which pains me a bit, more than a bit, but I don't think we have a choice," said Mr. Feldstein.
Though a Republican, Mr. Feldstein, 69 years old, has longstanding ties to many of the economists tapped to serve in the Obama administration. His most famous student, Lawrence Summers, was named to head the Obama White House's National Economic Council.

Reagan Aide Backs Obama On Stimulus - WSJ.com


Now we are here.....

• FEBRUARY 6, 2009, 10:35 P.M. ET
The Stimulus Tragedy
Obama bets that we can spend our way to prosperity.

The stage was thus set for the popular President to forge a bipartisan consensus that combined ideas from both parties. A major cut in the corporate tax favored by Republicans could have been added to Democratic public works spending for a quick political triumph that might have done at least some economic good.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done.
Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Get Little Value for Money - WSJ.com

and then in his own words-




Now we are here.....

• FEBRUARY 6, 2009, 10:35 P.M. ET
The Stimulus Tragedy
Obama bets that we can spend our way to prosperity.

The stage was thus set for the popular President to forge a bipartisan consensus that combined ideas from both parties. A major cut in the corporate tax favored by Republicans could have been added to Democratic public works spending for a quick political triumph that might have done at least some economic good.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done.

Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Get Little Value for Money - WSJ.com





and at the end of the day, in his own words-

Marty Feldstein was supporting the financial stimulus, but has changed his mind when he actually read the bill. He now opposes the Obama Stimulus. Read below. I encourage you to read the entire article. Full article can be found here.
———
As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional spending.


The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment and employment. The extended loss “carrybacks” are primarily lump-sum payments to selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years would be recaptured later.
Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses?

Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and employment.
Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital, more business investment.

Martin Feldstein: 01-29-09 Obama Stimulus Bill is Mistake Financial Economics Today - Wayne Marr

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Once this is propped up between the Senate and the House, in the final hours...I expect this bill to be near $1 trillion.
What will happen, which as you noted above, a few more Republicans will be bought...some obscure $billion dollar pork project for their state to get them to vote yes.
In the end I expect perhaps 10-15 Republicans will give in - and the bill will escalate, not retract.

All the while remember...only 32% of America wanted it to be $800bn.

you really think so? I mean if that many republicans cave there had better be serious and far reaching tax cuts, thats my price at least.

if they allow themselves to be bought now, they are dead as Kelsey’s nuts.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."