House Democrats Reveling in New Bully Role
Long time readers will know that it’s a rare day indeed when I find myself agreeing with Michelle Malkin. (I’m pausing to think if I’ve ever linked to her from TMV.) But following last night’s disastrous failure by the House of Representatives to achieve any sort of bipartisan consensus on a stimulus package, I think she is correct in saying that the House version of the bill has turned into a gigantic “crap sandwich” and the Democrats own it 100%.
Personally, I don’t even find it all that excessive to refer to the House version of the package as the “Generation Theft Act of 2009.”
There are two areas of collapse in the process we are witnessing.
One, of course, is the failure to develop a laser accurate spending package which focuses on the immediate task of stimulating the economy and creating jobs while limiting the burden of increased debt. The package is festooned with a metric ton of spending which even the most generous supporter could not say (at least with a straight face) is designed to stimulate economic growth.
But the other, and perhaps more significant failure, was a complete breakdown in President Obama’s efforts to find common ground between House Democrats and Republicans and get the job done in a “post-partisan” fashion.
One of the nice things about working with a stable of fine writers such as we have here at TMV is that a variety of opinions can be aired and we can often disagree without being disagreeable. With that in mind, I will include some comments from my colleague Michael Stickings, who examined this issue already. Michael titled his piece, Republicans Vote Against the American People.
So much for bipartisan outreach. So much for Obama’s efforts to be inclusive and to seek compromise with the other side. All the Republicans could offer was the same old tired formula of tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts, and, when it came right down to it, when it came time to pick a side, the Republicans sided, in unison, against the American people and the American economy.
If I am to accept the premise that the House GOP voted against the people of America today, then the Democrats voted against the next several generations of Americans to come. And as I watched this battle play out in the media, my observations didn’t match up with Michael’s at all.
Yes, the Republicans often focus far too much on tax cuts and miss seeing the forest for the trees. But for the stimulus package, the GOP found a number of items in the bill which they strongly supported. These were generally the massive investments in infrastructure for roads, bridges and the nation’s power grid. Some of them were even willing to go along with expanding unemployment insurance options during a time when so many Americans are losing their jobs.
Had the Democrats been willing to strip down the bill a bit and focus only on spending which would produce immediate, tangible results, I’m confident that this bill could have sailed through the House with wide, bipartisan support.
Instead, we witnessed a tour de’ force of the newly minted, Democratic superpower. One of the most telling features of the evening for me was watching the facial gestures and body language of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Unlike many of her previous, stern appearances, the Speaker sat at her bench and smiled broadly, seeming to be on the verge of giggling a number of times, as the Republicans lined up to vote against the bill. At least for me, there was a very clear message being sent. And that message was, “we don’t need to work with you any more. I have the votes and I have the power. We’re not just going to appropriate money to address the economic crisis here. We’re going to fund a whole bunch of things we’ve been trying to get through for the last eight years. We know you don’t agree, but you’re going to sit there and take it. You did it to us when we were in the minority. Let’s see how you like it.”
I also think the GOP opposition spoke directly to a point that Michael was trying to make earlier.
You know what? It’s not just about stimulating the economy, it’s about helping people. It’s responsive, responsible government action at a time when government action is desperately needed.
Sorry, Micheal, but I have to respectfully disagree on that one.
What happened to the need for “urgent, immediate action” to address the economic crisis? When did the stimulus bill turn into some sort of massive, omnibus appropriations juggernaut?
Helping people is wonderful and many of the Democrat’s proposals for social programs are worthy of consideration, but they don’t really speak to the stated purpose of this emergency action. Each of those other projects are worthy of and deserve vigorous debate on their own merits. What would be the harm in leaving them aside for a few weeks and then bringing them up in appropriations bills of their own?
No, what this smells of to me is a combined case of political cowardice and new majority bullying. By sneaking all of these other programs into the bill, the Democrats hope to buy themselves some future cover, saying, “We had to pass all of those things! The economy was crumbling and a stimulus package was required!”
It was also, as I noted above, a chance for the long bullied Democrats to rub the Republicans’ collective noses in it. If you ask me, Speaker Pelosi didn’t want any Republicans to vote for the bill. She wanted to show them that there’s a new sheriff in town and to put them in their place.
Sadly, I think she did it at a tremendous cost to the nation.
Our debt is eventually going to come due, and the numbers are quickly growing beyond any imaginable way to pay them off.
76 Responses to “House Democrats Reveling in New Bully Role”
PORKULUS.
BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.
This was Harry Reids and Nancy Pelosi's baby. They wanted to drive a stake into the heart of the GOP. If this thing succeeds and all the GOP was against it that means more bloodbaths at the polls in 2009. If it fails the Democrats will pull a page from the GOP and proclaim loudly a billion times aday that the GOP wants us to fail. Want you to fail. Want Americans to fail.
The talking point is already in place. All the GOP wants is more tax cuts. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts as if thats a dirty word and yet. Barak Obama wanted and preached and proclaimed he was going to give 95 percent of all Americans a tax cut. Yet when the GOP says it, its a dirty word. When Obama and the Democrats say it…….its your salvation.
LIke I said over and over during the election process. Barak Obama is not in charge. Nanny Pelosi and Harry Reid are. They wrote this bill. Not Obama. It was Barak Obama the great “Getter alonger” who failed to drum up bipartisan support because his own people are working against him. He did not fail. CONG$RESS failed.
These politicians all refer to each other as my good friend on the left or right. My friend this. The honorable that………BS they actually do HATE each other. The last 16 years are just too much for them to overcome.
“
greenschemes said: “LIke I said over and over during the election process. Barak Obama is not in charge. Nanny Pelosi and Harry Reid are. They wrote this bill. Not Obama. It was Barak Obama the great “Getter alonger” who failed to drum up bipartisan support because his own people are working against him. He did not fail. CONG$RESS failed.”
Pelosi and Reid will be President Obama's biggest obstacle to his vision of bipartisanship. There is entrenched partisanship due to both sides being rubbed raw. It's upsetting to see this but not unexpected. We'll see how this plays out.
Jazz Shaw,
Today, I take back all the mean things I have ever said about you. This post is one of the best examples of the point/counterpoint arguments I would expect to see on a blog that advertises it has a balance of viewpoints.
You just earned the boss a $200 increase in his fundraiser totals this morning.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again: elections have consequences. The bi-partisanship schtick was never very persuasive. Call it a crap sandwich. Call it a wasteful pork package or a 40-year wish list. You are correct that Pelosi cares little about those objections.
My problem with the GOP opposition here is the hypocrisy. These are the same folks that voted for the largest expansion of entitlement spending since LBJ – simply because a Republican was President. They lost the right to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism. The only difference now is that the Democrats run the show. Principle? Or partisanship?
And those of us who live in Congressional districts represented by many of these so-called “small-government conservative Republicans” know that “reducing spending” is just a slogan. When it comes to their own districts, these conservatives trump up all their new pet projects. My rep, John “Jimmy” Duncan (R-TN02) sent out a newsletter where he railed against wasteful government spending in general…and then showed a picture of a bright and shiny new “justice center” that he was “proud” to fund for the district. Duncan has also been a major supporter of Federal funding for a local Civic Arts Center (one that I support too); but this isn't exactly small-government thriftiness.
We are Americans. We want the government to spend while telling ourselves we think it's excessive. We also want to pay no taxes, all the while grumbling about long-term deficits.
A real pipe dream would be a stimulus that provided a “laser accurate” approach on things we all agree to.
elrod, you're right that the GOP leadership is reversing course, but I can't fathom why we wouldn't want them to change course back to fiscal responsibility. What, they're supposed to remain irresponsible in order to avoid having you label them hypocrites? OF COURSE it's being done now because of political opportunism. It's also in part because some in the party have learned the lesson of the rebukes at the polls in '06 and '08. Why wouldn't we applaud them now for learning the lesson?
If you're agreeing with Malkin, maybe you're overreacting?
I agree with Elrod:
Republicans decided for political reasons not to support whatever the House came up with. They opted out of the process in spite of the economic emergency.
We've had eight years of the outlook Elrod described. Of Republicans sticking someone else with the bill.
Do you really think it's now just case of the shoe being on the other foot?
Republicans decided for political reasons not to support whatever the House came up with. They opted out of the process in spite of the economic emergency.
If that were true you might have a point, but the GOP leadership explained exactly what they believed and what they would and would not support, and except for the Dems caving on the contraception funding and the mall landscaping (under pressure from Obama and the disapproving public), Pelosi wouldn't work with the GOP at all.
T-Steel said: “Pelosi and Reid will be President Obama's biggest obstacle to his vision of bipartisanship. There is entrenched partisanship due to both sides being rubbed raw. It's upsetting to see this but not unexpected. We'll see how this plays out.”
I agree. It was striking that Obama made trips to the Hill, did Photo-ops with GOP leaders, in an effort to seduce them.
In contrast, Pelosi would not even meet once with the GOP.
Clearly, Obama and Pelosi are not reading from the same prayer book. Bipartisanship is not just about playing nice…it can provide political cover.
The GOP want the Democrats to own this so-called stimulus package 100%. But, with a little pork and padding, Obama and Pelosi could have peeled off a couple of Republicans.
Obama is a much smarter politician than Pelosi…who has overreached more than once before (anyone recall her “alternative Democratic foreign policy” mid-east trip with Lantos?).
It will be fascinating how this all plays out in future. Will the Democrats go whole-hog and pull the nuclear trigger? Does this signify future splits on strategy between the Obama WH and Congressional Democratic leadership?
Democratic candidates like Franken raked GOP incumbents over the coals for voting for the Bailout in the past election…even though Pelosi and Frank were the Bailout architects.
At least they will not be able to do the same in 2010. Instead, look for the reverse to happen.
I notice that neither Jazz or CS mention that the main thing that the House Republicans said they wanted was for the package to have a huge increase in the kinds of tax cuts that they love. Up to 40% of the package. And exactly how many of the people blasting the Democrats now supported the Republicans when they shut out the Democrats much more thoroughly? I believe the number approaches 100%. Rank, stinking hypocrisy on display.
Jazz–
When you say Republicans were “shut down cold” by the Democrats, don't you just mean Republicans no longer have the votes to do whatever they want.
Remember that what Republicans wanted when they were in charge was to create the largest entitlement program since the 1960's, even as they were cutting taxes–even as we were waging two (poorly managed) wars.
And since I'm agreeing with Elrod, let me ask you about something else he said:
The only difference now is that Democrats run the show.
Just because Democrats now have the votes to put their own ideas into effect doesn't make them bullies. (Bullies!! That's just a bunch of Limboid spin.) It just means Republicans had the actual chance to be fiscally responsible and they blew it.
casualobserver, I don't know whether I'm pleased or frightened at this turn of events…
but you have my sincere thanks anyway!
George, did you really just say that the Republicans blew a chance to be fiscally responsible by opposing more than 800 billion in spending for an emergency stimulus when easily 500 billion of it wasn't going to address the stated purpose of the emergency legislation in question? The mind doth boggle.
Waaah Waaah Waaah, the Democrat Party is so meeeeeean!
Funny, innit, how suddenly Republicans are all for “bipartisanship” now that they lost power. That's right…LOST. Barack Obama told the American people this is exactly the kind of thing he wanted to put money into: infrastructure, school upgrades, alternative energy. And the American people voted him in by a bigger margin than your Dear Leader ever dreamed of enjoying. The Democrats tried to work with the Republicans, even taking some things out of the package in an attempt to appease your little egos…and the Republicans turned around and said “screw you.” Well, you had your chance to get on the train and you blew it. So stand on the platform and get left behind while you whine and cry about how mean the Dems are.
I remember when Republicans held Congress, Democrats who voted as a block were “obstuctionist” , and now in power, Democrats who vote as a block are nonpartisan. So only Republicans can vote as a block an escape being either?
Jim, I don't really think there's anything wrong with a majority party exercising it's powers- but they can't have it both ways. If you're going to play hardball, then you're not going to get bipartisan compromise. I actually think there are correct times for either approach; sometimes the majority should be more conciliatory (when the country is divided, and when the problems are serious enough that we have to find policies that use the best approach from right and left instead of a purer version of either side's ideology.)
I haven't kept a scorecard, but there were definitely times that I felt the GOP leadership was being hyperpartisan, and other times when I wasn't critical of it.
My issue with Pelosi right now is that she shows no sign of understanding that the voters in November were asking for change in tone, not change to an extreme liberal agenda. I happen to think she'll pay for this political miscalculation, and I'm not going to whine about it (I hope the GOP reps don't either.) But it's sad (and more than a bit worrisome) for the country IMO because I believe this bill will make matters much worse. Some Dems said that this had to be passed quickly because it had to be compared to the cost of doing nothing; well, what if one believes that this will actually compare in a NEGATIVE manner to doing nothing- that it will deepen the crisis?
You're right about that request for 40% of the package to be in the form of tax cuts, Jim, but you've got the party affiliation wrong. There was one guy in early January, before the negotiations even got started, who announced his intention to seek that degree of tax cuts (including cuts for businesses.) That guy was….
Barack Obama.
And the tone they voted against is being displayed by the Republicans, not the Democrats in the House. Remember, the main spokesman for the party has already said that he hopes Obama fails. CS, I'm not aware of one Republican including yourself and Jazz who criticized Republican hardball tactics once in the last 8 years. The House Democrats came up with a bill and voted for it. Period. You think that it will make matters worse. That's your ideology. The government is bad and if it's a Democratic Party dominated government it's worse. It's pure knee jerk reflexive objection, predictable as the sunrise. You've never once done anything differently. But that belief system was the largest contributor to where we are today, and it was helped along by some Democrats.
Let's be honest. It doesn't matter what the Democrats do. Unless they go along completely with what the Republicans want we'd be hearing the same thing that's being said now by Malkin and Jazz's friend Morrissey.
So, Jim, my response to the bill is ideological and yours isn't, huh? OK, I'll await your economic analysis about how this is going to create jobs, and how Pelosi's argument that every dollar that is put into the economy creates $1.38 is correct even though it completely ignores the fact that this is all borrowed money and each dollar that we're spending probably costs WAY more than $1.38 when you add in the costs to finance the debt.
Yes. Tax Cuts have worked so effing well for the past 8 years, haven't they? God what a broken record. What's missing in this analysis is that some of the stimulus is aimed at long term growth and that will give back long after Obama is out of office. The problem with this country is that the government reacts to crises and implements short term solutions for long term problems. Kicking the can down the road is not the answer. Immediate doesn't have to mean shortsighted. And if you are agreeing with Malkin, then maybe you need to rethink your post.
And listen, as I've already made pretty clear in all of my comments on this issue, Obama is coming off just great here. I don't expect the GOP to set the agenda, that would be absurd under the current political environment (they lost, they deserved to lose, I get it.) But Obama is representing the reasoned approach just as he promised, to seek the best solutions and not the ones which are based on building power for either political party. He obviously understands that some pretty major tax cuts are appropriate under the current situation.
So, if I (a Republican) favor the approach of the Democrat in the White House, and you favor the approach of the hard line Democratic Congressional leadership, you still somehow find it possible to call me the hyperpartisan. Interesting.
Jazz–
Sorry to be unclear.
I'll go back and quote Elrod again, since he's a better writer than I am:
I'm saying that when Republicans were in actual charge of the government, they created the largest entitlement program since tha 1960's, while cutting taxes, while poorly managing two expensive wars.
I'm saying Republicans don't have any credibility as the party of fiscal reponsibility, based on their actual actions when they actually ran the government.
Now that Democrats run the government, they've decided to be the party of voting no, instead of being engaged in the process.
If you're counting on the Republicans to be the party of fiscal responsiblity, shouldn't you demand they be engaged in the negotiations to support your interests? (I'm asking you this seriously.)
I hope that was more clear.
djshay: Tax cuts is too broad a concept; some cuts are appropriate in some situations and not others, and some cuts are definitely not helpful at certain times. It's a shame that both sides have made a mockery of any real understanding by approaching these debates with a boilerplate approach.
It's the same with spending; if the govt spending is really going to serve as a stimulus, we have to evaluate whether each dollar spent by the govt (which actually costs us far more than $1, just like when you finance a purchase and end up paying a lot more than the sticker price when you factor in the interest payments) will actually circulate in the economy. For instance, part of the problem right now with the checks being cut to taxpayers is that people have so much debt, they're not likely to spend the money on consumer goods anyway.
And then there's the question of whether the govt is injecting capital in a way that will add to private sector investments instead of supplanting them. Spending on infrastructure makes sense because the govt is the main purchaser. The major roads and bridges wouldn't be built or maintained if the feds weren't appropriating the funds for those projects. But other jobs can and will be created more efficiently by the private sector if the overall health of the economy returns.
If you're counting on the Republicans to be the party of fiscal responsiblity, shouldn't you demand they be engaged in the negotiations to support your interests? (I'm asking you this seriously.)
But George- I don't know how well you've been following this, but the GOP leadership DID ask to be engaged but they were shut out. What else could they have done?
the rethuglicians had already decided to vote against whatever the bill was BEFORE Obama ever met with them. Their comments that they agreed with parts of the bill, but still voted against it en mass tells me that the decision had been made and all the little authoritarian rep congresspersons had damn well better vote with the leadership. Same thing when DeLay was in charge. Do what the leader says and no backtalk.
Were the reps voting on their principles? No, they wern't. What they were voting on was getting headlines and “winning” the days news cycle. Nothing more than that.
Other than their tax cut mantra, they offered nothing. And what proof do they have that their tax cutting works? Didn't work in 01, won't work now.
CStanley–
What I've reading includes articles like this from The Politico:
GOP Defies Obama Overtures.
I've also read that some things were removed from this package at Republican insistance. We've been discussing this at the other thread. You said the things removed were too small to be meaningful. I asked if that was because Republicans decided to opt out of negotiations.
The economic crisis seems like a big emergency to me.
I realize, as I'm sure that you do, that Republicans are in the minority. So many things aren't going go their way. Does it make Democrats bullies when they don't give Republicans all they want? I ask this because they lost the majority–they're just not going to get everything they want.
Are Republicans going to be to be satisfied just voting no on everything?
Are they upholding your point of view when they do this?
George, I'll be happy if the GOP votes no on principle to bad legislation, and then finds opportunities to vote with the majority if/when they propose responsible legislation.
Here's how I read the events:
Obama met with GOP leaders.
GOP leaders told him what they felt was wrong with the Dem proposals, and what they would want to see changed before they could support it.
Obama failed to convince Pelosi to yield on those matters.
There are signs that there's more room for bipartisanship in the Senate, so it'll go there now and we'll see what happens. Unfortunately though the kind of bipartisanship we'll probably see there is the kind that makes the bill even more expensive without improving its effects.
And let's point out some sleight of hand by the liberals in making their points above………..
1. True entitlement spending is considered part of non-discretionary spending. Unless you go in and reduce benefit checks, those programs will just automatically grow hugely. Elrod says we're ideologically disengenuous now because we didn't choose to take away Satterfield's food stamps while Bush was in office.
2. The more logical of those walking the earth look at non-discretionary spending as the more indicative of Presidential spending. I believe that the three biggest of Bush's non-discretionary spending items were Homeland Security, Katrina and the Drug bill. I'll give you the last one as “entitlement spending” but not the first two.
3. The reply posts here are naturally going to come out framed as a response to the editors posts. They control what subjects we get to comment on. SInce the banishment of Jason and Michael from this weblog, we are left with the raving right-winger Dennis Sanders as the only person the admits to even being a Republican. When did Stickings, Dewind or Mullen ever give us a chance to comment on the passing of the Medicaid Drug Bill here?
4. Where is the Democrat Nation here getting this “we demand/want bi-partisanship”? We being defined as either Republican Congress of conservative commentators here. Seems to me that has been coming from Obama? If Republican Congress simply asks to see a bill in committee or offer floor amendments, that is a whole lot more basic than demanding bi-partisanship. Only the controlling party can effect bipartisanship. Pelosi didn't offer the opportunity and Obama didn't push it hard enough to sway votes.
And with the exception of occasional acts of bravery by Shaw or TSteele, the editorial control here does not tee up a “both sides of the coin” discussion.
5. Did you ever consider the possibility that Bush got votes/support simply because the other candidates were even more scary?
Everyone keeps saying the GOP chose to vote against this. That somehow they imagine in their minds they were left out of the loop so let me post this yet again for your reading pleasure.
Two years ago, she said; “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.”
Back when they were in the minority. In 2004, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proposed a “Bill of Rights” for the minority party, lamenting the “incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” and accusing Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert of shutting out Democratically-offered alternatives.
By passing a new package of House rules by a 242-181 vote today, Democrats eliminated in some cases the minority party's ability to file a so-called “motion to recommit.” In the past, such motions served as one of the only opportunities the minority party had to influence the substance of any tax-related legislation. This article is from Democrat spokes network MSNBC.
Let their be no mistake about it. Pelosi and Reid are bullying the GOP. They love it and they are hoping to drive a stake into the heart of the GOP with this PORKULUS BRIDGE TO NOWHERE Bill.
CStanley–
If you are representative of most Republicans, and you are satisfied with every single House Republicans voting no, then I guess they shouldn't stop.
Shouldn't stop what, George? Acting on principle? No, they shouldn't stop (and there was a massive phone effort yesterday, so yes, I think I am pretty representative.)
But should they take the message from this that they should obstruct everything along party lines? No, of course I don't believe that.
I think what will be telling is how the Democratic constituents react. They're the ones who have to determine if they want their elected reps to continue acting in this manner. The polling that I've seen indicates that even people who identify as Democrats are concerned about the massive spending.
CStanley–
If you're satisied with performance of the House Republicans, maybe there's no reason for them to perform any differently.
Part of this may be chest-thumping and positioning by each group of actors to be as strong as they can be to start the next two to four years, but this bill is horribly bloated and intelligent people's concerns about over-spending and lack of restraint by the Dems has come to pass.
I've encountered extra-pathetic (surprisingly pathetic, but perhaps I should learn that it won't be surprising now, even less so in two years) incorrect statements (to be extremely kind and generous and to say the very least, only) that this is a good bill. I didn't realize that the lefties have once again conveniently re-defined the English language and used it in a euphemistic or outright dishonest manner. If this bill is good, then someone I work with, who weighs well over 300 pounds, has problems getting into and out of his chair and maneuvering in tight places, and who breathes hard and sweats when simply waddling from one place to another on the same floor of the building here, is in “good” shape physically. (He also provides a suitable metaphor for this bill and the Dems' attitude toward spending, and their ambitions and conceits, at least in the House so far.)
cs-
When the Democrats voted together against Bush's proposals- you called it obstruction.
Now that the GOP is doing the exact same thing, you call it standing on principle. Will you at least admit to having a double standard??
Not only should they not perform any differently, I'm starting to wonder how I can urge support for Cantor for president in '12- or if the GOP miraculously stages a comeback in Congress, I hope he'll leapfrog over Boehner for the Speaker position. I think he brings far more credibility to fiscal responsibility and is obviously doing his job well as whip so far.
Kim, you'd have to point out the specific comments that I made to that effect. I said above in response to Jim, I believe that each party when in the majority should sometimes exercise certain powers and other times not, and when in the minority should also sometimes use whatever powers it can to stop what it believes is bad legislation. I certainly don't recall ever saying that the Democrats should never have done that at all (voting en bloc against the majority's bills) even if I did at times believe that they did so for partisan reasons rather than principled ones.
And what is your opinion on the GOP vote, Kim? If you say they're wrong to all vote no, then you are reversing your previous stance of defending the Democrats for doing so.
The fact is that I'm sure we each give our own party the benefit of the doubt for their motivations more so than we do the opposing party. I'm willing to admit that (though I do try not to ignore their more self motivated actions), but will you also concede that you do so?
“Barak Obama is not in charge. Nanny Pelosi and Harry Reid are.”
This is the real challenge Obama faces, not the weak GOP.
Pelosi and Reid and Dems like them don't want any Obama “outreach,” any compromise, any common sense reducing their power.
It will be interesting to see not only what change Obama can bring to Washington and to the Democratic Party and its “establishment” but who else rises in the years to come, particularly from non-traditional-old-and-decrepit Blue Nation Rust Belt areas and a select other few places like notorious California. Having the Dems get stronger in the Sunbelt (outside California) is a companion phenomenon to what we might see insofar as personnel and _agenda_ changes eventually in Washington (if we're lucky!).
Just wait until Obama moves toward entitlement reform, _really_ trying to save Social Security and Medicare, for example. (Pelosi: [gasp])
CS, you've never been anything but a partisan Republican on here for good or ill. I call you that because that's what you are. Don't like it? Quit being one. You show it by sharing your party's obsession with demonizing Pelosi. The fact that you think Cantor, a hyperpartisan hack, should be president shows it. And it disproves your claim about not believing that the Republicans should just vote against everything proposed by Democrats.
Ah, I see what you're saying now, George. And yes, the GOP has been horrible in terms of fiscal responsibility through almost their entire last stint in the majority. Also true is the medicare charge. But I'm curious if this means that they are then forever to be branded and expected to be fiscally irresponsible, or is it allowable for us to hope that they (and the Democrats, for that matter) can do better? I'd prefer to hope for and encourage improvement.
This was supposed to be an emergency stimulus package. Again… had the Dems stripped it down a bit to make it an actual stimulus bill, they could have had bipartisan spport. And they've shown that they have the numbers to rifle through their wish list in other legislation any time they want. Why not try?
CS – you are arguing with a tree.
To those on the left here, straight-line Democratic voting is bi-partisanship in its highest form, and straight-line Republican voting is, to quote that bastion of moderation at TMV Michael Stickings, 'anti-American' and 'hating Americans'.
Here is an interesting factoid per CNN.
If you work and earn less than $ 75k a year you will get $ 13 a week extra from the tax cut.
If you don't work your unemployment goes up $ 25 a week.
Reminds me of a Bob Newhart routine.
And one more point I just made on another thread about this bill.
The reality is that was a completely partisan bill by the Democrats, and a completely partisan reaction to the bill by the Republicans. So why should either party be blamed? They are both to blame, both are being cynical, but only one is spending 1.2 trillion dollars on a pork bill.
Chris — [sigh] tax cuts are also stimulative. AND, ahem!, some kinds of spending are better than others, and some are worthless and are, in this bill's case, obvious bloat and sops to special interests, and are indefensible. Logic, Chris, and conprehension, logic and comprehension.
A serious stimulation bill would include at least some spending cuts and would be prioritized and allocated to yield the best anticipated results, such as which I've posted numerous times, the source at Moody's quoted before on behalf of the _Democrats_:
[The misspelling is theirs, not mine.]
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/assissing-...
Logic, Chris, logic. Direct most, if not all, the spending increases and tax cuts where it yields the most.
Also, as I have said _already_, have the Dems favor “all rather than a few” [sic; gag] and co-opt the Republicans on tax reductions by choosing broad-based reductions, and someday replace payroll taxes (in part or in whole) with income tax revenues, even making Social Security and Medicare spending all “mandatory” (which is just emotional pablum until the revenues needed accompany such commitments).
A.R.: Stickings not only posts splattery waste on this site, but is the master of irony given what he says so often describes _himself_. He's so extreme, childish, and otherwise “troubled” I often just ignore his comments, or sometimes get on his threads to comment on behalf of others, not of him, which would be a waste of effort, to date. (The most extreme and ridiculous posters, I simply avoid their “work” as a rule; other times I'm time-limited anyway, just setting things straight and moving on.)
“you are arguing with a tree”
or a rock [rolling eyes]
The current Republican philosophy is almost exclusively one of denigrating government action and worshiping tax cuts. The current bill does some things wrong. But they are fixable. Continuing the same philosophy that has ruled government for the last 8 years would do nothing and help no one except the wealthiest people in the country. The thing that President Obama has said that I like best is that what we should be worried about is doing something that works.
Since when did compromise and bipartisanship mean giving into every demand of the opposition?
From what I've read, the Dems compromised on the contraceptives and a few other minor areas. Where is the compromise from the other side?
AR,
Of course, most lefties would argue the opposite point. And operationally it'd be true. Most cases of bipartisanship over the last eight years has been Democrats siding with Republican policies, except in cases where both sides already agreed (like with the recent vote on Israel).
In cases where there is a distinct ideological difference, I would argue that bipartisanship is baaaad for the country. We end up with watered down legislation and muddy waters when it comes time to evaluate politicians during elections.
you are arguing with a tree”
or a rock [rolling eyes]
LOL, well, I'm not going to go there but I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes on it either.
Jim, maybe if the Dems would have shown an exception to the general type of govt action that conservatives rightfully criticize (they couldn't find any projects that didn't shovel forkloads of money to their own SIGs, really??), then the hypercriticisms of conservatives would be unwarranted. And I agree with your sentiment about what Obama said, but it's too bad his own party isn't listening.
Where is the compromise from the other side?
How do you compromise when you don't have anything to give up?
“How do you compromise when you don't have anything to give up?”
What exactly are you saying here? It seems to me that if 40% of the stimulus package is tax cuts the GOP has a lot it could compromise on. Say, 35% in tax cuts instead.
And another question…
If what is needed is a short term stimulus then why are we enacting permanent tax cuts in both the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax?
These tax reductions were originally written to expire for a reason. Making them permanent has little to do with stimulus.