THe American Recovery & Re-investment Act (H.R.1.S.1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1, S. 1)

Is a federal public law passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Its legislative history had three versions, the first approved by the House of Representatives, a second version approved by the Senate. The final version, a conference version resulting from negotiations of House and Senate leadership was approved by both houses of Congress on February 13, 2009, and signed on February 17 by President Barack Obama. [1]

Congressional negotiators announced on February 11, 2009, that they had completed the conference report of the bill.[2] The 1,071 page Conference Report with final handwritten provisions was made available to the public late Friday the 13th. [3] Reportedly, very few, if any, lawmakers read the final version before their vote was cast. [4][5]

On February 13, 2009, at 2:24 p.m., the Conference Report was voted on and passed as Roll Call Vote 70 by the House with 246 Yeas and 183 Nays.

The vote was largely along party lines with all 246 Yea votes given by Democrats and the Nay vote consisting of 176 Republicans and seven Democrats.[6] No Republicans in the House voted for the bill. At 10:48 p.m., the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 60-38, with all Democrats and Independents voting for the bill along with three Republicans.[6]

The remaining thirty-eight Republican senators voted against the bill. (Due to his illness, Senator Edward M. Kennedy-D Massachusetts was unable to vote; there is one Senate vacancy, for Minnesota.)[7][8]
Based largely on broad proposals made by President Barack Obama, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is intended to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn brought about by the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting credit crunch.

The bill includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

The 1,071 page new law also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The proposed government action is much larger than the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which consisted primarily of tax rebate checks. President Obama signed the bill into law at an economic forum he was hosting in Denver, Colorado, on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.[1]

-------------------------------------------

Firmness-Resolve And An End Result For Afghanistan!

February 12-2009:

Firmness-Resolve And An End Result For Afghanistan!

President Barack H. Obama MUST decide soon to end our military activities in Afghanistan. Because as I see it currently, the internal strife, insurrections, suicide bombings, and governmental corruption will continue to inhibit any military gains there. Coupled with the limited coalition forces that are militarily involved in combat.

Hamid Karzai'a government is CURRUPT. And the Taliban is gaining strength all over the country, because Afghans are hungry, un-employed en masse, threatened with torture and death if they fail to heed the Taliban, and the government cannot provide national security for the entire country, not even in Kabul.

Those countries that have sent meagre military personnel there, most of which are not involved in tracking Taliban and Al Qaeda elements or terrorists, are of little or no help there. And the president will have to decide very soon, if the US can withstand the bulk of this military mission there, without substantial military involvement in combat, against the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

If the president waits too long to decide how much longer are we going to stay there, then it is possible that Afghanistan will be another Iraq in dimension. Because the Taliban cannot be trusted to come on board with security. Their principal aim is to take back Afghanistan, and rule it under Wahabism.

And continue to kill, beat, and maim the Afghan women for wanting to be educated, and equality under the law.

I envisage thousands of US military personnel deaths in the weeks and months to come. With the 4000 US deaths already in Iraq, how much more are we going to sacrifice, in this ridiculous war in Afghanistan. That country will never become a democracy. Their history does not cater to any central governance either.

So any intention to rule Afghanistan from a Centralized government, is wishful thinking and detrimental to our military personnel there.

Derryck S. Griffith
Educator-Advocate & Blogger.
NYC.

Write Off Those Highly Toxic Loans Or Debts!

February 10-2009:

Write Off Those Highly Toxic Loans Or Debts!

As I see it, if we continue to speculate how or when those toxic loans in the banks will be resolved. I feel that they may never be reconciled, or sold to any realistic investor.

Because they are TOXIC, and the baggage and time it will take to gain traction, much less any income from such loans is un-imaginable at this time.

So the best way to encourage TRUST in the market now, is to WRITE OFF those bad debts, and start afresh.

The banks MUST write off those debts from it's books, and start all over again with credibility and adequate supervision, coupled with Federal Regulation and oversight.

This is to my mind, is the best way to move forward at this time!

Derryck.
NYC.

Are The Proposed Europe Missile Defense System Worth It?

February 06-2009:

Are The Proposed Europe Missile Defense System Worth It?

George W. Bush was keen to promote the concept of a shield or missile defense system somewhere in Europe, to combat any first strike from Russia (supposedly). This missile detect system is supposed to alert N.A.T.O of any incoming missile threat, necessitating a quick response to that threat.

This to my mind is playing into the un-warranted fear from the Cold War era, when the Soviets were alleged to be creating missiles that could reach US territories, and the USA had to be prepared to combat that threat. This un-warranted fear from both sides proved to be very wrong, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the end of The Cold War era.

Will president Barack H. Obama allow himself to be sucked into this paranoid military mindset, within the Pentagon and her allies in N.A.T.O. Or are we going to seriously consider how un-realistic this idea would be, if we intend to foster better or improved diplomatic relations with Russia, and the former Soviet block or allies too.

If we allow ourselves to be sucked into this war mongering mentality, then we would have accepted George W. Bush's idea, and thus continue business as usual in our foreign policy with Russia.

I strongly suggest that the Obama administration do not even consider, building or contributing to any missile defense system in Europe.

Because this conflicts with NATO's role in that regard, and makes NATO seem irrelevant, if not unwanted!

Derryck.
NYC.

No FREE Pass For The Big Bank's Executives!

February 03-2009:

No FREE Pass For The Big Bank's Executives!

When the IMF or The World Bank lends money to developing countries, they stipulate how, what, and where these funds MUST be spent.

With rigid oversight too!

Therefore, if The US Federal government is asked or is expected to rescue or bailout these BIG banks and Insurance companies that have made some very grave and irresponsible decisions in their internal finances, lending practices, and executive emoluments.

Then it is incumbent upon the Treasury Dept. to expect that all Top Executives follow strict guidelines pertaining to personal emoluments or salaries. Failing to do so, gives these executives and private institutions, carte blanche for their irresponsible actions.

When the ordinary man or woman in mainstream America, that have erred on their mortgage payments, loose their homes, and not get any compensation from the Federal Government.

So insisting that all recipients of Federal monies follow some strict and regulated guidelines as per their salaries, is justified at this time!

Derryck S. Griffith.
NYC.