Reid’s $56 Billion ‘Economic Stimulage’ Package Fails
The United States Senate voted against a ‘a $56.2 billion economic stimulus package that would have extended unemployment benefits, increased food aid and funded new construction projects to create jobs,’ as proposed by Democratic Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid, Reuters reported on Friday.
According to backers, the bill would help revive the American economy.
Non-partisan Democrats trying to use the current economic crisis to push through bills they pursued since the very moment they took over control of Senate, on the other hand, pointed out that it would not actually do anything good for the economy. It was, opponents said, nothing but an attempt by Democrats to abuse the economic crisis for their own, partisan and ideological goals.
Part of the bill as proposed by Reid was aimed at keeping in place ‘a ban on development of domestic oil shale deposits that expires next week.’
‘The bill would have extended unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks and boosted funding for food stamps by 10 percent. It would have helped states pay health-care costs and provided low-interest loans for small businesses,’ Reuters explained.
“What about the honest, hard-working, play-by-the-rule citizens at the bottom of this pyramid left in the ruins after years of mismanagement and outright malpractice by the titans of the financial industry?” said Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.
Virtually everybody who is not a Democrat reacted by saying that no is not the time for extra spending packages. After all, the U.S. government could very well inject as much as $700 billion into the economy within hours, perhaps days, time.
More at conservative blogger and TV commentator Michelle Malkin and CQ Politics.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
