Wasn't this already approved? Now I'm confused.

@Buran: It was approved by the House, but not the Senate.

I knew it would happen, go figure that the Senate would add a small fortune in thier own magical cures to the bill

I wonder how many people have already spent their refund?

"OMG, bill going through...better make sure we add our pork!!!" --The Senate

And here I was hoping to buy $600 worth of MD 20/20 so I could stay drunk all the way through the recession.

It was not, but it was written about- both in the general media, but especially on the Consumerist- as if it was already approved.

Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.

Boy: Die?

Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.

Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?

Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.

Boy: Oh no!

Bill: Oh yes!

I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

the sadest part is this kinda crap is what hurts democrats in elections, they can't every figure out when's a good time to act quick, or a good time to make sure they analize everything about a project...more uneffective leadership every day.

I am upset with the Senate on this. I'm not 100% happy with the House deal, but I was willing to accept it--now the Senate comes around and it's like a pissing contest. If they did a poll, I bet most Americans would accept the House stimulus plan--now the Senate wants to make it fatter and more complicated. I feel like telling these Senators to back off.

I hope it just dies and doesn't happen. It's dumb and forces the debt onto our children. Again!

The damage had already be done to the economy by the rampant spending of the Bush administration. Bush's proposal was already way too little and way too late.

The US is now indebted to other countries that have been lending the money for the Bush spending spree. This proposed $150 billion temporary patch would just further ad to that debt. Whatever bill arrives on his desk, will be made to fit his desires anyway by his abusive addition of signing statements.

@dwayne_dibbly:

That's a whole lot of MD 20/20.

Congress is the opposite of progress.

@DMDDallas: Uh, Congress passed the bill. In the context of this article, you would be more accurate saying "Senate is the opposite of progress." But yeah, I get it, Senate doesn't rhyme with progress.

@gingerCE:

You're right, let's get this passed into law and then they look at other measures separately. Instead, they try to bundle everything together so less popular expenditures can get stuffed in.

$150,000,000,000 would likely save a lot of dying children or maybe even permanently solve the homeless problem in the US.

I'm all for moving money from the government's pocket back into the citizens' pockets. But I can't help but shake my head over this deal because the government is really, really hoping that everyone is going piss away $600 almost the moment they get the check. Yay for our consumeristic culture!

@humphrmi: Actually, the House of Representatives passed it. The other house of Congress, the Senate, is proposing to attach more crap to it and delay things, so it's in fact still in one of the 2 houses of our bicameral legislature, the United States Congress. Representatives like to call themselves Congressmen/women because it sounds more official than Representative, and Senators call themselves Senator to differentiate themselves from those lowly congressmen who are "only" in the house of representatives, but they're both part of Congress.

@ShortBus: Uh, you seem not to have noticed, but the government doesn't have any money in its pockets right now; just some Chinese credit cards.

I like how it's called a "rebate." Is that like a defective-product rebate (what part of America was defective?) or an instant-savings rebate (are we trying to lure taxpayers away from our rivals?)? I sure hope it gets here soon! I need to go buy shit!

Just to clarify, nobody passed anything. An agreement was reached in principle between House leadership and the President. No legislation has been introduced, no votes have been cast. The House package will skip the Ways and Means Committee and head directly to the floor. The Senate, rather than assent to the proposed agreement, will markup its own bill.

Like other modest proposals made in the past during recessions, this will likely drag on and not be enacted until the recession is already over, deeming it pointless. Let the market solve itself. How about this? Don't take the money from the citizens in the first place, then you don't have to worry about waiting another two years to get 10% back after the government wastes 90% of it.

They're probably going to end up sending everyone $100. And you know what? To most people $100 isn't really a big deal. Sure, it's some extra money, but it's not really enough to do anything with. You can't take a vacation, you can't buy any good electronics, you probably can't pay off any bills. We'll get the checks, and we'll all be like "Woo-hoo, a hundred bucks. I guess we could go to that classy restaurant downtown, or we could just stick it in the checking account and forget that it ever happened."

$100 sent back to a lot of citizens adds up to a lot though. It's better than having it in one lump in the hands of congressmen to be spent on "projects."

@ClayS: That's the only way some things get passed, though, by attaching things onto bills, especially must-pass bills. Like it or not, it's a real time-saver. I mean, imagine having to go every single item that every Congress critter wanted to pass in full detail. They'd be backed up and things would take too long to be considered.

Okay, maybe I am naive, but what exactly are the 150 billion going to do? The country is already bleeding money out of every orfice it has and now they want to slash another wound for a short term "stimulus" based on consuming more goods?

If they would really want to think long term then they would try and upgrade infrastructure and work on Education and things that will have value in the long run, not just allow everybody to go out and buy a bigscreen TV.

Or maybe I am just ignorant and there is more to this than meets the eye.

@WhaDa: WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

@StevieZ83: You got that right.

@humphrmi: No, you don't get it. It isn't just a rhyme; CON is the opposite of PRO, thus congress is the opposite of progress. And congress hasn't passed the bill; only HALF (the house) of congress has.

I would be much happier if they scrapped the whole damn thing and just focused on paying down debt. I don't want to hear about any type of plan that adds money to the deficit. We're a wealthy country, we should be paying our bills, not living on credit.

This is the downside of politicians. It's an election year, let's give money to the people.

Inflation is the great hidden tax on the masses. Might as well get some votes out of it. Hooray for deficit spending!

@mell: I really do blame the Senate Democrats for wanting to add more pork to this bill. I'm not a Dem, I'm an Independent, and usually I like the Dems--but this time they're messing around with something they shouldn't be messing with. I thought Pelosi did a good thing in negotiating this bill. Now the Dems want to give rebates to those on Social Security who also, don't pay taxes, then more food stamps and extended unemployment, also heating oil money to the poor--a Dem even mentioned adding money to repair roads and highways onto this bill!

Why can't this bill remain simple and stay the way it was intended. All of the Dems ideas have some validity, but they seem like separate issues and shouldn't be part of a tax "rebate" plan.

@gingerCE: While I agree that keeping the bill 'clean' would help it speed through, most of the items to be added at least be said to be useful to help people as well. Obviously, the road issue doesn't but nutrition assistance and foodstamps, for example, are fabulous additions, and I can't see why the President would hesitate to pass a package that helps more people with essentials.

If the President truly calls himself a compassionate conservative, he should support these additions.

Ahh, the sweet BBQ-esque smell of congressional politics.

Pork++;

@mell: Actually, the road issue helps people. Sometimes the reason for a major road project (besides the obvious infrastructure benefits) is that it puts lots of people to work and involves large purchases of domestic materials. Just think of the massive public works projects during the New Deal. The reasoning was the same.

@nequam: It helps, but road projects do not benefit people as immediately as foodstamps or nutrition assistance does. And I think it goes without saying the road projects to be funded in this attachment would come nowhere close to those performed to fight the Great Depression. A bridge here, repaving there, maybe an exit or two.

@mell: I am not against helping the poor and elderly, I just feel that is a separate issue. This bill was proposed as a tax rebate--starting out as 800/1600, then 600/1200 with 300 for low income workers, to what will probably be 200/400 with 100 low income, 100 all seniors on SS, 100 additional in food stamps, 100 additional in unemployment, 50 in heating subsidies, and who knows how much given to states for road infrastructure. Given as this is more or less an advance paid for by taxpayers for 2007/08 to be taken out of their 2008/09 tax rebates, people who already subsidize most of the poor/elderly/state projects with their taxes, it's like a form of double taxation. As for where this money is coming from? Rumor has it is going to be deducted from the refunds of taxpayers in 2008/09, so really the taxpayers get nothing, while those who didn't pay taxes in 2007/08 get free money, and then again, pay no taxes in 08/09.

It's not fair. And I stress again, low incomers already have a very generous tax credit, the EIC worth up to $4000 in refund even when they pay no taxes. Why should they get a piece of this rebate when they already have a much better tax rebate program just for those making under $36K.

@gingerCE: You're going off of rumors to argue against aid to the poor that is attached to a bill that is supposed to help America. Isn't the whole point of the bill to take care of Americans? If so, and as I said before, if the President truly is compassionate (I don't believe it for a second), he'll jump on this chance to help less fortunate people.

As for the EIC, how many people does it pull out of that bracket? Apparently none. If anything, it simply holds them steady instead of letting them sink further. SO I see nothing wrong with helping out more.

@gingerCE:
The EIC only affects those that have earned income.
But, and it's a huge but, it doesn't help anyone with a low income solely from Social Security and/or a pension.

So hurray for Max Baucus for remembering that there are lots of people without a lot of money.
A year or two ago, several Congressmen tried to live on food stamps for a week.
Guess what happened?
They had trouble getting enough healthy food & had to rely on crap, which causes more obesity.
They proposed an increase in the food stamp amount and of course the Republicans opposed this, because a few on stamps might actually buy a cheap steak as a treat occasionally.
Can't have that, can we?
A welfare queen or two might exist.
They are taking so much more money than all the giant corporations that get corporate welfare in this country.

@mell:

You don't believe the President is a compassionate conservative, which is exactly why you don't add stipulations to a bill like this. He will veto it, as he's done before. I understand that you want to help people more than what this bill does, but it's obvious that adding projects to this bill virtually guarantees its demise.

And although I wouldn't mind seeing this bill wither away,I don't want it to do so because Democrats couldn't leave it alone. I don't see how this bill failing helps Democrats.

I tend to favor Democrats because I'm a strong believer in individual rights and freedoms, but I'm also heavily in favor of fiscal responsibility. Apparently neither political party seems to recognize what that is anymore, and it makes me want to scream.

@Islandkiwi: Just because *I* don't believe in the President's compassion doesn't guarantee that he won't follow through to help the people. I'm just of the personal opinion that he will show his hypocritical side yet again.

And it's because of that that he gives Democrats ammo by shutting out programs to the poor, just as he vetoed the insurance program for children.

I tend to favor Democrats myself, but every so often I see a Republican I like (Ron Paul). I would be a registed Democrat if they would only show some backbone when it comes to dealing with the GOP.

@mell: You've got a retort that's in search of an argument. Nobody is saying it should be road work OR food stamps. Both appear to be in the proposal.

"I tend to favor Democrats because I'm a strong believer in individual rights and freedoms"
Then you support the wrong party. Democrats = Big Government (Government getting all the money and deciding what's best for you). Republicans = smaller government (letting people use their own money the way they want to).

You're completely backwards on this one. If you want financial freedom, you can't ever ever ever support a Democrat. That's just the way it is.

Democrats are proving their fiscal irresponsibility by NOT rushing out to spend billions of dollars? The bill the President wants is flawed and the legislature exists to act as a balance on whatever the President wants. Adding extensions for unemployment benefits is one thing that Congress can do that can provide real and immediate stimulus for the economy. There you are dealing with the individuals directly impact by the slow-down and these are people who will likely put that money right back into the economy which is the net result we're looking for. Leaving it out is just partisan politics from the GOP. The Democrats should push for that kind of provision if what we really want is an effective stimulus package. Rebates can have a positive effect, but the overall effect of the package will be much greater if it includes aid to unemployed workers.

Free-for-all gifts ultimately can do more to buy support from the public, but that support would go to President Bush so why should Democrats go along for the ride? Infrastructure improvements DO put money into the economy while making much needed repairs to our roads. Do we need another tragedy to get how important that is? And the work creates jobs, too! People need to work on those roads. People need to produce the materials to fix those roads. If we can fast track needed projects already in the pipeline, we can ensure the safety of our nation's infrastructure while also stimulating the economy. Not every road project is a bridge to Nowhere, Alaska.

Yes, this needs to be fast, but that's not a reason to give the President a blank check. His lack of leadership on the economy allowed the mortgage crisis to explode, so I fail to see why whatever pops into his head is automatically the right choice.

@nequam: I was saying there shouldn't be road work since it's my belief that the bill should be of a more direct nature in how it helps people.

@gingerCE:
And here is an article from Salon that expands on the theory that a higher food stamp benefit will decrease obesity!

No more food stamps. You've eaten enough

[www.salon.com]

As Paul Krugman observes in his column Friday, the Democrats are not doing much with their majority in Congress. The fiscal stimulus package "deal" agreed to between the White House and congressional leaders on Thursday is a Bush administration dream: a broad-based tax cut, plain and simple. It fails to do what many economists stressed should be the primary focus of any rescue plan: target relief at the poor Americans who can most be counted on to quickly spend any additional help and thus boost demand across the economy.

The most glaring absence in the terms of the deal announced so far: No extension of unemployment insurance or increase in food stamp benefits.

If the U.S. does officially enter a recession, help on unemployment benefits will undoubtedly arrive separately from this fiscal stimulus package. Or at least that's been the typical pattern in previous recessions. But what about food stamps?

The attraction of food stamps is that, unlike cutting a check made out directly to every American, increasing their value doesn't require goosing cumbersome IRS machinery into motion, a process that requires months or longer, even with the best of intentions. Food stamps are administered through debit cards -- at the flip of an electronic switch benefits can be boosted, with the advantage of being perfectly targeted at those most likely to need help in an economic downturn. According to longtime Food Stamp program advocate, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., every dollar invested by the government in food stamps results in $1.84 in economic activity. So what's not to like?

Well, aside from Republican reluctance to boost any kind of government spending aimed at making a tangible difference in the public welfare, there is also the assertion, reiterated Friday morning by the consistently interesting and provocative Megan McArdle, whose libertarian-oriented blog is hosted at the Atlantic, that poor fat people shouldn't be encouraged to buy more food.

The poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not...

The economy doesn't need a food sector more distorted by daft government programs than it already is. If you want to give money to the poor, give it to them. Even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates.

Would increasing food stamp benefits worsen American obesity? The claim that this is so has been a hobby horse of the right in recent years, most often associated with the writings of Douglas J. Besharov, the director of the Social and Individual Responsibility Project at the American Enterprise Institute, a hard-right think tank. But there are plenty of academics who argue otherwise. One economist at Sonoma State University declared in 2003 "that the data does not indicate any relationship between obesity and food stamps." That same year, a paper titled "Food Programs and Obesity in U.S. Children" by two University of Maryland Family Studies professors found no evidence that food stamps were correlated with childhood obesity in the United States. A study published in the Journal of Nutrition (also in 2003) by a City University of New York researcher did find that food stamp participation was "positively related to obesity in low income women" but a commentary in the same issue by a Cornell University nutritional scientist cautioned against making too much of the findings.

Low incomes in the United States are correlated with obesity, a stunning turnaround from the pre-World War II era. Low incomes are also correlated with food stamp program participation, so it makes sense that there would be some relationship between obesity and food stamps. But obesity is also correlated with disproportionate patronization of fast food outlets -- a practice that food stamp benefits don't cover. Which at least raises the possibility that strapped families would use a food stamp increase to buy more groceries instead of eating out at McDonald's, and thus potentially reduce obesity among the poor.

Ideally, a properly functioning food system in the United States would subsidize the production of nutritionally healthy food, rather than an abundance of high-fructose corn syrup subsequently injected directly into the body of nearly every American via the vehicle of cheap junk food. Addressing the root causes of that problem presents far greater challenges than simply helping out, as quickly and easily as possible, poor Americans in a recession.

@Atomike: Right, smaller government. Unless you're gay. Gay people don't get rights or freedoms. If you're black and want to vote, too, that's not really going to be protected, either. Or if you're a woman making health decisions for your own life. That's really more of the government's business.

"Small government" is branding. That's all. Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they never actually do. Bush is spending more than Clinton. Clinton rolled back Republican tax cuts and decreased spending. Bush cut taxes and increased spending. What's more fiscally responsible? To increase revenue while decreasing expenses or decrease revenue while increasing expenses?

@Atomike:

What BSTU said. Republicans should be about fiscal responsibility, but they're not. They're supposed to be small government, they're not. The deficit, borrowing from foreign nations, the size of the government...all these dramatically increased under the Republicans.

With the Republicans it hasn't been about rights or freedoms, it's all about control.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: I didn't read your article, but I would like to add I eat very healthy, am single, and my grocery bill is probably under $30 a week. I try to buy the fruit/veggies on sale, whole wheat bread, tofu which is very cheap instead of meat, and chicken when on clearance etc, though I do buy only organic milk . . . one blogger did a story on trying to survive on $30 a month for groceries and I actually decided to try this on my own--and I did it for a week (so ate on $7.50 that week--did not include beverages though). I lived on mostly rice, homemade chicken stock, chicken I bought on clearance and made into soups, whatever clearance veggies I could get and eggs (though I bought regular brown eggs--normally on $30 a week I buy organic eggs).

How much do families get on food stamps each week? I'm kinda curious.

@WhaDa: I don't have children. I just want my damn tax money back. Worry about your own children and leave me the hell alone.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: I actually went grocery shopping today--my total for the week $25.93.

It's actually a lot cheaper to cook healthy food from scratch than to buy convenience food like microwave meals or fast food.

My hubby and I generally eat for about sixty per week. I made this recipe for dinner tonight. Delicious and about $2.50 total to make.

[recipefinder.nal.usda.gov]