Obama to Sign $24B Economic Stimulus Bill

Legislation Will Extend Tax Rebates for Homebuyers, Unemployment Benefits, Business Tax Breaks

(AP)  President Obama is set to sign a $24 billion economic stimulus bill providing tax incentives to prospective homebuyers and extending unemployment benefits to the longtime jobless who have been left behind as the economy veers toward recovery.

The White House signing ceremony Friday comes a day after the House, displaying rare bipartisan agreement over the seriousness of the jobless situation, voted 403-12 for the measure. The Senate approved it unanimously on Wednesday.

The White House said the bill, which also includes tax cuts for struggling businesses, builds on provisions in the $787 billion stimulus package enacted last February that aim at spurring job creation.

Lawmakers stressed that the fourth unemployment benefit extension in the past 18 months was necessary because initial signs of economic recovery have not been reflected in the job market.

"The truth is that long-term unemployment remains at its highest rate since we began measuring it in 1948," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said. About one-third of the 15 million people out of work have gone at least six months without a job.

The bill would provide another 14 weeks of benefits to all out-of-work people who have exhausted their benefits or will do so by the end of the year, estimated at nearly 2 million. Those in states such as Ohio where the jobless rate is 8.5 percent or above get an additional six weeks.

The unemployment rate is now 9.8 percent and economists are predicting that there will be tens of thousands of new job losses as new job market figures are released.

The extra 20 weeks could push the maximum a person in a high unemployment state could receive to 99 weeks, the most in history. Unemployment checks generally are for about $300 a week.

The tax credits, added by the Senate, center on extending the popular $8,000 credit for first-time homebuyers that was included in the stimulus package. The credit, which was to expire at the end of this month, will be available through next June as long as the buyer signs a binding contract by the end of April.

The program is expanded to include a $6,500 credit for existing homeowners who buy a new place after living in their current residence for at least five years.

The credit, said Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada, a state particularly hard hit by the recession, "will allow more people to purchase a home in my district and help stop the continued downward spiral in housing prices caused by the foreclosure crisis."

Prolonging the life of the homebuyer credit has been a priority of the real estate industry, which says it has been instrumental in beginning to turn around a market that was a major cause of the economic downturn. About 1.4 million first-time homebuyers have qualified for the credit through August, and the National Association of Realtors estimates that 350,000 of them would not have purchased their homes without the credit.

The other tax credit allows businesses that have lost money in 2008 or 2009 to get refunds on taxes paid on profits during the five previous years.

The Senate spent more than a month crafting the package and working out partisan fights over amendments, angering lawmakers and others who pointed out that 7,000 people lose their unemployment benefits every day.

The National Employment Law Project estimated that 600,000 workers exhausted their benefits in September and October while Congress debated the legislation.

The lead sponsor of the bill in the House, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., reminded lawmakers that they'll have to revisit the issue again before adjourning for the year. The bill applies to benefits exhausted this year, and "Congress must act again before the end of this year to continue the extended unemployment benefits that we are now improving."

The more than $21 billion cost of the tax credits would be paid for largely by delaying a tax break for multinational companies that pay foreign taxes.

The cost of the unemployment benefit extension, about $2.4 billion, is offset by extending a federal unemployment tax that employers must pay.

[happygirl49221]

I think Obama is doing what he thinks will help..and we should stick by him and give it a chance. Anyone who tries to act like they know all the answers are sickening. No one likes a know it all. So all these people who get on here and act like they would do something different that what Obama is doing because "they just know more than he does" in my mind..is out of line. If this person is so smart than why isnt he the president???

[bann65]

You don't give out stimulus, you cut taxes for businesses so they can grow and provide more jobs! Any kid studying economics in grade school knows this! LOL. What is wrong with this guy and his secretary of treasury who didn't pay his taxes for two years? These people should get the nobel DUMB prize. They deserve it! :)

[hungry1968-17]

by Empire-George November 6, 2009 1:00 PM EST
by reveal4 November 6, 2009 12:50 PM EST

We don't play class warfare and pit one economic class against another, as your liberals do.






You've GOT to be kidding!!!!!!

[hungry1968-17]

by Empire-George November 6, 2009 1:02 PM EST

That's just it.....Obama is not superman, captain planet, and is not capable of "saving America" like some do-it-all superhero....that's your problem, you see a 4 year chief executive and think he's going to "save the planet" or "try and save America"







And you would prefer someone like Bush that sits idly by and DOES NOTHING as our economy implodes, right?

Yeah great plan.

That worked out well, didn't it?

[Empire-George]

by hungry1968-17 November 6, 2009 12:43 PM EST

Only what Obama is spending to try and save America
________________

That's just it.....Obama is not superman, captain planet, and is not capable of "saving America" like some do-it-all superhero....that's your problem, you see a 4 year chief executive and think he's going to "save the planet" or "try and save America"

[reveal4]

Why do the folks on the far right fight for the rights and prosperity and wealth of the 5% of Americans who own 95% of the nation's money. The other 95% of us are fighting for the 5% of the money not hoarded by the rich. Why does the far right not fight for their own interests instead of the interests of the 5% of the folks who own 95% of the nation's money? Obama gave the 95% of us a 5% tax cut, and is trying to loosen up the money supply for small business. Obama is actually trying to give the 95% of us some help and the far right won't give any credit to the President. Who are they fighting for...rich folks, greedy corporations, fat cat Wall Street CEO's? Why? The rich folks are hoarding the nation's money supply and trying to take every remaining penny from your pockets. The far right are fighting against their own interests, just exactly backwords.

[Empire-George]

by reveal4 November 6, 2009 12:50 PM EST

We don't play class warfare and pit one economic class against another, as your liberals do.

[pubsrtoast]

by reveal4 November 6, 2009 12:40 PM EST
The national debt is about 11.9 trillion now. Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for just about 100% of the debt. Those who think Obama is responsible for a large percentage of the national debt are simply wrong. The debt was accumulated overwhelmingly due to Reagan and the Bushes. This is simply the historical fact. Deal with it.
__________________________________________________________

The national debt is much, much higher than the number being tossed about. The following is from a treasury report commissioned by Paul O'Neil and shelved by Bush so that he could get his taxcuts passed...

Study commissioned by O?Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink

The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the ?baby boom? generation?s future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O?Neill.

But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.

Of course, those numbers were prewar and pretarp.

[bcpats]

Spend, spend, spend - - like a teenager gone wild with their parent's credit card ! ! ! !

[hungry1968-17]

Yeah. We didn't spend AT ALL while the republicans were in charge.

Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater and all of their hundreds of billions wasted in "no bid contracts" on IRAQ - none of THAT counted.

Only what Obama is spending to try and save America, right dimwit?

[element51]

Many of todays problems can be traced directly back to the Reagan era. I watched that man literally turn the country over to big business and I knew that we were going to be in trouble. Once the corporations started moving our manufacturing base off shore we were in trouble but no one did one damn thing to stop them. You cannot have a vibrant economy without jobs unless you are Wall Street and can manipulate the system to your advantage. The transfer of wealth to the rich has been massive over the past few years and until jobs are restored things are only going to get worse. You rail at Obama for providing funds to be used among the middle class but if he did nothing we would be far worse off than we are now. At least he is trying to help the working class which is more than McCain would have ever done. We need to stay the course and give time for things to improve. Use your tea bags to make yourself a cup of tea.

[bcpats]

msimamaji - - you said: "If you want to improve employment, you need to redistribute the wealth from the rich to working people. This means raising wages of everyone, both here and abroad. It means additional public works programs to be paid for by taxing the rich. (Who have stolen the money to begin with.)" Most of the so-called 'rich' "WORKED" or are working to earn the money they have or are acquiring ! ! !

Your theory is pure Marxism. I am taking from your comment that either you are very young, or unemployed or have not managed your money well, if you are working to save for the future, or all of the above.