Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prologue

The article has been merged with the article titled "Economic Stimulus Act of 2009". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/Documents/recovery_plan_metrics_report.pdf Chandrasonic (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No time for congressmen to read

New revised bill was footnoted. all previous drafts are dicta and irrelevant. article was footnoted regarding the lack of time for the members of congress to read the bill. no POV, just LOGIC. it is voluminous and abstract.

Regardless, the prologue must be updated as it stands now. i suggest you unrevert my version. it is factual and succinct and you lost my pdf links to the final amended version. that took me more than 1 hour to consoldiate.

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it isn't POV, but I would still argue there is no sourcing. You say here that the congressmen aren't going to have enough time to read the legislation before the vote, and then the sources point to 400 and 500 page pdfs to "prove" that there is no time to read it. Plus you blasted away a few of the links in the first sentence. ConstRepublic (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

the first sentence is no longer timely. there is a new version and you should at least revert my pdf links to that. too much verbiage. past is past, not prologue. very few had time to read it and i linked the source and it's on all the cable news shows as well. not opinion, just fact. time to update, sir. see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvnwOjDjnH4 and http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478 i footnoted the word "version" with the pdf link and footnoted the end of the sentence with the cnsnews link. it was not confusing to me.

Furtive admirer (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is csnnews.com a reliable source for this edit? And does this belong in the first paragraph? ConstRepublic (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

yes and yes. you can always add an additional source there are many. I just hope the pdf links have been updated to the final version. The prologue is too large and should be condensed into another section. It is now only one version consolidated - no longer 2, though the bill has 2 sections (2 pdf links), which i did provide before you reverted it a few days ago.

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

'''PARTISAN PROPOGANDA''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by J dogg110182 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim "Reportedly, very few, if any, lawmakers read the final version before their vote was cast" is completely unsourced and purely prejudicial. No where on the Washington Post article does it state that ANY MORE THAN TWO Congressional members did not read the bill before voting. It just says "members." This is a general term that does not in any way substantiate a claim that all or nearly all or even a near majority of the 535 "members" of the United States Congress failed to read the bill. This is pure editorialism that damages the credibility of the site, although I doubt very much that the individual posting the dishonest content has any concern for honesty.

Further the non-source refrenced does not meet even the barest level of impartiality or credibility. They are apparently unaware that the new President of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama since they inaccurately refer to President Obama as "Bam" in the subtitle. If they don't even know the President's name they cannot be considered a valid source for "reporting" the reading level of the U.S. Congress.

Finally, the article violates a basic rule of ethical journalism by asking a question that the article makes no attempt to answer. The use of rhetorical devices is not news, but editorialism. Editorials aren't news. The fact that the rhetorical device IS the title makes the unethical behavior all the more flagerant.

This portion fails to meet any minimum standard of evidence. This means that it is nothing more than a spurious accusation at this point that wreaks of disingenuous intent. No causal relationship has been demonstrated between the alledged failure of some members to read the bill, and the final resolution being agreed to by Joint Council 2 days earlier.

This abuse can not be allowed to stand. It must be changed immediately. --J dogg110182 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Move this page to "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"?

That's now the name of the bill, in both the House and the Senate. Yaron K. (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I approve. This should be a redirect to that page. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it's done. Yaron K. (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does all this money come from?

Heaven? 83.11.171.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

China. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, although that is a common mistaken impression. Jeff Carr (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Itself. There isn't a master US government bank account that must be kept at zero. Unlike a individual checking account, the federal account can go as negative as it wants. Jeff Carr (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse?

"Hollywood: 246 million to make movies."

I'm assuming this is abuse and I am taking it out. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooner016 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's actually true. CNBC says that there's a "$246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.", so in essence, 246 to make movies. Spencer^T♦C 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard something about honey bee insurance being in the bill, was that taken out or did it ever exist in the bill in the first place? 68.51.41.46 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The full texts of both the final House and Senate versions are in the very first line of the article. Enough of this conspiracy stuff, read them for yourselves.TomCat4680 (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I found my answer somewhere else, never mind. 68.51.41.46 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Its in the bill, read it.Smallman12q (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Krugman article is from last year

The Krugman article (citation 7) is from January of last year. It is misleading to cite this because he is writing about a different stimulus package. 76.19.65.163 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Bush in the economist reaction section

I'm not sure who wrote this part but it the last paragraph about the Bush Presidencies does not belong there. It is not about economists' reaction to the stimulus. Additionally it shows clear bias. If we include the statistic that 1/5 of Bush's term in office was in recession, why not include the fraction of Hoover and Roosevelt's presidencies that were during a recession-both of which used more interventionist approaches to the economy. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.54.153 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Funding?

Does this Act authorize the spending, but not appropriate funds? I think that would be a fairly typical thing, and if it's the case, is worth pointing out. Funding is usually passed in later votes. swain (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Investment" vs. "Spending": POV?

Phrases such as "domestic investment", "educational investment", and "health care investments" have been reverted by a user that claims that they describe a point of view. This user has changed "investments" to "spending", probably thinking this is a more neutral way of putting it.

My point of view is that investment (A placement of capital in expectation of deriving income or profit from its use.) is the more neutral and factual term for what this bill aims to do, because the term spending promotes the parochial viewpoint that these expenditures have no prospect for long-term returns or any other purpose besides an exhaustion of resources in a way that investments does not. Noble Spear (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be exactly the point! Investment pretains to a type of spending. While we can't be sure that this is for the point of deriving a profit (A LOT of Politcans use it to avoid saying spend), but we CAN be abosultly sure it is spending.--74.243.21.198 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You can actually put a negative connotation on the word "investment" in this context as well. Isn't this supposed to be a fast-acting one-time stimulus bill full of "shovel-ready" projects? People against the bill are actually using the word "investment" to point out that the bill is not "stimulative" enough. That was my first thought when reading the section headings. Now it may be the case that no phrase will satisfy everyone. But we do have the choice here of removing the word altogether. What's wrong with simply using category names "education, energy, etc". Just a thought.DavidRF (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate way to choose POV terminology is to use words in their technical way. Then it is technically accurate and readers interpretation is left to them. Technically, investment requires physical dividends. Investment is a technically misleading term. This bill while it is debated among population whether it is proper or not. It is not our debate, but our job is to describe it accurately whether it is supportive or not. Investment is not what it is. It doesn't mean its wrong or that the term spending is pov. But it is not investment in a technical since and so it is not fit for an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.200.180 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The main part of the dispute appears to be in section headers; an easy way to resolve this dispute is to just shorten those headers by striking the word "investment" entirely without replacing it with anything and thus making the header lines more concise. Jon (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Investments" is a propaganda term much like "tax credit" for those that do not pay taxes. 68.84.6.98 (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

President Obama's response to the criticism that it's a "spending bill" was to say "that's the point", and to argue that spending was the definition of economic stimulus. -- AvatarMN (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to characterize the monetary allocations of the bill in the sub-headers of the article, and I have accordingly removed the "investment" characterizations, and the POV tag at the top of the article. Let the reader make her own assessment as to the character of the allocations.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was the section about the report from the Congressional Budget Office report deleted?

This edit is not justified.

This is the text of what I wrote, which someone else erased:

A February 4, 2009 report by the Congressional Budget Office said that in the long run, Obama's plan would cause more harm than good. The report stated that while the stimulus would help the economy in the short run, the debt incurred by the plan would cause net harm to the economy. The report estimated that if the plan was enacted, by 2019 it would cause a net reduction in GDP of somewhere between 0.1% and 0.3%. [13]

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, put it back up. Factual, sourced info shouldn't be removed.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The CBO itself makes no claim that Obama's plan would cause more harm than good in the long run. It furthermore does not claim that there would be net harm to the economy. It states that they think the GDP will have a net reduction of 0.1% to 0.3%, but has an entire section on why GDP decrease can be completely unrelated to how well people are doing. I have appropriately edited out the uses of "the economy" to mean the GDP. The section may have been deleted by someone who found the text to be unbalanced and rather incomplete, but chose not to put in the effort to fix it. RobHar (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the section instead of erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you put a direct quote from a reliable source, be sure to copy it EXACTLY, without modifying the text at all, to avoid being misleading and misinformative.TomCat4680 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

CBO report important Put it back.--Rccarl (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Payroll tax cut needs to be updated

Hi, I read recently that the payroll tax-cut currently is going to be 400/800 not 500/1000 as listed in the article. I won't update because I don't remember the source (or know how to source). But I trust if this is true someone can update the article. In the meantime, I just wanted to mention it.--210.248.139.34 (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind. According to this: http://readthestimulus.org/amdth1.pdf the tax-cut appears to remain 500/1000. Sorry!--210.248.139.34 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Conference report says $400 & 800. Article properly updated. RCCarlson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rccarl (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just found a legitimate source but you already beat me to it!--210.248.139.34 (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Any cut in the home capital gain tax in bill,to take a job in new city

My friend is an unemployed manager that has owned a home for 30 years and the home capital gain tax is more than his take home pay for first year. His accountant says he can NOT move to take the new job. Even worse, is the division of 30 jobs will be move to India if the company can't get him to move and manage the group. (India must allow people freedom to move??) Right now, you can only get $250K/ $500K for being in house for being in house for 5 years. Does the stimulus bill fix this and index for inflation (like adding $50K single / $100K married per year in basis). Right now, now only dead people can move to jobs in new cities (step up in basis and exemption of $3.5M would allow a dead person to move and take a job in a new city!!) Government would actually make 10 times more money on income tax if he move and paid tax for 10 years and 200 times more money if the 30 jobs don't go to India. Did this idea get added to the bill? He suggested it to his congressman. 71.131.2.132 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the 250K / 500K is post cost basis of the home. (e.g., if he bought it for $100,000 and gets $300,000 then he doesn't own capital gains on it). It's possible he made have added a room or remodeled at some point during the last 30 years that would also increase the cost basis of the home. But about the lack of an index on that provision, complain to your congressmen & senators, not the wikipedia. Jon (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See Capital gains tax in the United States#Primary residence. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Neturality tag?

I'm seeing a neturality tag on the article, but am not seeing anything in the discussion page or the history about why it was placed. Perhaps the editor who placed it there could also state what part he's objecting too, since I don't see anything standing out. Also, why are there clean up tags on the discussion page? The main problem I am seeing in the article itself is that many sections are missing the conference provision (perhaps there's no reliable source for those provisions yet?). Jon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, saw it a few sections above. Jon (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ALL Cited Articles in the Health Care Section are Right-Leaning Opinion Columns

The tone of the health care section seemed POV, then when I clicked the citations I found out why. Do we consider these to be valid citations? KyuzoGator (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be a bit POV, especially with all the "quotation" marks. But are you implying Bloomberg and WSJ are not credible sources? I wouldn't agree with that. ConstRepublic (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Both the WSJ and Bloomberg pieces are op-eds (clearly marked op-eds, in fact), not news articles, and should not be included as they have a non-NPOV. Papers are not responsible for the accuracy of the content in op-eds and thus the credibility of the WSJ and Bloomberg is not at issue here. Also, reference 25 doesn't work, so I deleted it.173.32.62.74 (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone is going to defend its inclusion I will be deleting the non neutral POV op-ed content in the health care section.173.32.62.74 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I also find it odd that the health care section discusses which types of conditions are treated "more often" when the legislation isn't in effect yet. The POV is subtle, but it's definitely there. KyuzoGator (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Stimulus Plan" Redirect?

Should there be a redirect page at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_Plan" to link to this site?? I'm not sure of how to do this, technically. 24.190.132.242 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 Done -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What about Economic Stimulus Act of 2008? Needs to be a disambig if anything. Grsz¹¹ 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a copy of the Bills to Wikipedia

Could someone upload a copy of the bills to Wikipedia. They are at Official Bill.Smallman12q (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 61#Uploading a copy of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 bills.Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is outdated

I can't find any information in this article on what is actually contained in the final version of the signed bill. I've created a new section titled "Provisions of the final bill" which is currently empty. Please help add content to it. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Something like this? Spencer^T♦C 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here I found a large PDF summary of the bill at http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-13-09.pdf Spencer^T♦C 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone check over what I'm doing? Spencer^T♦C 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The final signed version is at recovery.gov.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm using an official bill summary from the Committee of Appropriations. I don't have time to read a couple thousand pages of text, and this is cleaner as well. Spencer^T♦C 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to read a couple thousand pages of text - (Spencer)

apparently neither did anyone in Congress! TomCat4680 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've finished updating American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_final_bill. Spencer^T♦C 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good job. The "Provisions of the Senate version" section is still lacking though.TomCat4680 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm actually wondering if we can remove those sections...they aren't really relevant anymore because they aren't in the bill. Spencer^T♦C 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

President section

Grundle, I thought we already covered this on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama#NPOV. You can't use three unrelated sources to try and make a point as you did in this edit, it is a violation of WP:SYN. The first two sources are indeed valid references for Obama saying what he did, but they were not made in relation to ARRA and the sources you've provided do not make that connection, so can't be used to then say he "broke both promises". You need to find at least one reliable source that makes this connection and use that sourcs(s) to reference all three statements. Additionally, Pajamas Media pretty much fails every criteria of WP:RS, particularly WP:SPS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the partisan bickering and stick to the facts.TomCat4680 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the fact that he signed the bill less than 5 days after it was passed is proof that he broke his promises. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here's what I added to the article:

On his webpage titled "Agenda and Ethics," Obama had promised, "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." [96] Furthermore, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." [97] He broke both promises when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [98]

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's someone's opinion and not a fact, a violation of WP:NPOV. Call Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly with your right wing opinions. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's a fact, not an opinion, that Obama signed the bill less than five days after it was passed. Second, if you look at the userboxes on my userpage, you will see that I favor legalizing gay marriage, legalizing drugs, keeping abortion legal, and ending the U.S. embargo against Cuba. Exactly how "right wing" does that make me, and what would Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Really say about my opinions on those issues? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an amateur at this, but it looks to me like section 5 of H.R.1 classifies the bill as emergency legislation under the definition in S.CON.RES.21 --einexile (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would not sign a non-emergency bill in less than five days. Is this an emergency? Yes, probably. Again, please check your POV before you press the log in button. Grsz¹¹ 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If this bill is an emergency, then why did he take a vacation and wait 4 days to sign it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the president section is awful. Please, somebody change it. There is absolutely nothing that proves either point. I am a bit ashamed to even see such an awful section on Wikipedia, especially for such an important article.Jickyincognito (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee Grundle, I wonder. Maybe he wanted to um, actually read it. Some presidents are actually literate, unlike W.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well W. has a higher IQ, but you won't find that listed in the media. I wonder why?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Say completely obscure blogs. Neither of these issues are relevant or respectable. That's why no coverage. Grsz¹¹ 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the title of Section 5 of the conference report pretty much resolves whether or not this bill is an emergency or not. That title being "EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If W is so smart why did he run the economy into the ground? I bet Rush and O'Reilly wrote these supposed "IQ blogs."TomCat4680 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So I get two editors who "rebuke" me for saying that Bush has a higher IQ than Obama, but not one of you "rebuke" the editor who said Bush was illiterate. Why?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because W IS illiterate.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM. Please stick to discussion about the article - this is not the place for immature partisan bickering. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll stop.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain something to me, Grundle. When we are in the worst economic downfall since the Great Depression, Hundreds of investors lost large amounts of money to a major Ponzi scheme, and people are having their homes and cars repossessed because they can't afford them anymore, how is an economic stimulus plan a "non-emergency" bill?

I am not using sarcasm. Maybe there is something about the economy I don't understand. I'm not an expert. --Montaced (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Free media relevant to act

I just took a look at the Recovery.gov copyright info page and it appears that all content on the site - even the content produced by third-party vendors - is either public domain or CC-BY. Might be some good media, charts, etc. to dig out of there. Dcoetzee 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove House vs Senate section?

Is the House vs Senate versions section really neccessary? I don't think it is, since the final compromise version is now law, they're both outdated and irrelevant.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the single largest spending bills in America's history. For the better or for the worst, it will have a huge impact on both the health of the American economy and the government's role within it. It will be of historical value to look back at the decision-making that went into this bill, thus the content is encyclopedic. We don't want to let recentism get to our heads. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like someone else removed it anyway...TomCat4680 (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They really should not have, if their reason was the passage - just because a bill is signed into law does not mean the process behind its drafting is not important and of historical value. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I don't know their justification though. Dcoetzee 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

DISASTROUS LOSS

My name is Richard Carlson user rccarl rccarl@pacbell.net I know less about Wikipedia and more about this subject than the rest of you put together. I've actually helped draft Federal & State legislation and worked at the highest levels of government. I know this stuff.

This is certainly the most complex, least understood, least debated and close to the most expensive piece of major legislation of the decade. The full history is vital as are the full details of what was passed. We were building a complete history and description and then some Yahoo threw it all away.

Why is this even an issue. Millions of people need to know what is here, good and bad. Skip the debate and just give the facts.--Rccarl (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)rccarl

Someone's a little arrogant. Welcome to Wikipedia, the rules here state that if a consensus is reached to take it out, you must follow that consensus to avoid an edit war.TomCat4680 (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Two of us feel strongly about leaving most of it in, 3 of you want to drop. Unless something is just plain inaccurate or partisan, things should be left in when there is no consensus. We're not a newspaper with length limits.--Rccarl (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a disastrous loss. All the info is still in the article history (and elsewhere on the web). I'm sure most people coming to this article are not looking for a tedious explanation of all the different versions that were debated, but instead are looking for a nice summary of what is actually in the final legislation. Personally, I support removing the old information from the article. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I too would Support its removal. It's needlessly long for the content value. I can't imagine a large portion of readers would wish to see a comparative section, and those who do can just as easily read the information elsewhere on the web. Nigholith (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The average reader will have no idea how to find the article history. The comparison is nowhere else on the web that's easy to find. These are huge expenses. A year from now, when some fail and some work, it will be useful to look up where they started. I agree that most of the detail on results should be in the final bill section but that section is now woefully deficient. It's missing $500 billion, all tax changes, and the whole $53 billion state Stabilization Fund. --Rccarl (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I third keeping it in. I fourth leaving it out. Jchthys _{u.p. / cont.} 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No one reading bill

I think it's extremely important to note that it's very standard for no congressmen to read these bills. In fact they have aids that do some of this work. What about the previous Bush bailout bill you think anybody read that? That goes for anything. I know the media played it a lot, but let's be serious this is Wikipedia

-Ham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.188.223 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That kind of statement is clearly unprovable, making it weasel words. This is why the page is protected. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is unprovable, but a version of this exists in the lede. The 3rd sentence in the 2nd paragraph reads, "Reportedly, very few, if any, lawmakers read the final version before their vote was cast" with a link to csnNews.com. Should this be removed? ConstRepublic (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its a clear violation of weasel words.TomCat4680 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Public Law

I suggest include also the public law number in all acts (former bills) signed into law. --Nopetro (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing half trillion?

Going through the numbers, the combined result of the stated causes only receive $269.899 billion of the ear-marked $787 billion. I don't think the article specifies where the remaining half trillion's going. Nigholith (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well why don't you read the Act and find the missing money.TomCat4680 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If nobody has the answer off-hand, I'll have to. Though considering the length of The Article in question, you'll forgive me for not taking that as my first option ;-) Nigholith (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

When are they going to release the Cliffs Notes for it? TomCat4680 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Got me. The closest thing I can find is the Press Summary; but that only accounts for the quarter-trillion odd mentioned, not the full $787 billion. Nigholith (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to know where the missing half trillion is, too, hopefully without having to read the full 1000+ page text. I suspect that the bulk of it is in tax cuts, and that "earmarks" (AKA "pork") are much of the rest. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

According to press articles on the subject "34% of the package is devoted to tax cuts equalling $286 billion, and a further $120 billion will be used to fund infrastructure projects, such as road-building and transportation. 64% of the package will be allocated for money for social programs and spending." (Quote from the Wikinews article). Though I can't find the original source for this, nor the exact nature of the spending, I assume it's all in the Bill. Nigholith (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edited Provisions of the final bill to say as much. Nigholith (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone took out the whole tax discussion, which is $286 billion. Old detail had much more of the expenditures, Why was it taken out & how can it be retrieved?? --Rccarl (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)rccarl

You think a section of the article has been removed that shouldn't have been? You can check the article history. Nigholith (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I found another $53 billion -- the whole State Stabilization fund was missed. (I added the $45 billion education portion to that section.) That means we're still missing the whole tax section plus about $175 billion -- the amount of the entire Federal Budget in about 1973. We need to find the rest. I'm prepared to pick away at it a section a day. --Rccarl (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)