REPUBLICANS BACK TO SAME OLD PARTISANSHIP

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 29, 2009 1:13 PM GMT
    The Stimulus package was encouraged. Obama certainly made an effort with the House Republicans.. personally encouraging them to vote for the stimulus. Changes were even made with regard to the package to try and secure their support. And of course the Republicans stated there "was too much government spending".

    Normally I'm pretty reserved with certain criticism, but not this time. This coming from the party that "cuts taxes and spends" and dug the hole we are now in over the last 8 years? Pathetic. It goes to show that this ridiculous group of people would rather stand of their sinking hype than try and help this country out of the mess its in. I'm so grateful they are now in the minority!

    And Obama should continue to do what he did this time, listen, make changes to enlist the support of all and move forward.... the American people will make the final judgement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 2:26 PM GMT
    I agree, the Republicans are playing political games for their own benefit, while the country and the world teeter on the brink of another Great Depression. It's now been reliably confirmed that the Republican leadership ordered their House members to reject President Obama's overtures hours before he arrived on Capitol Hill to speak with them.

    And they did, 100% of them, although the Repubs are now trying to spin the story that the order to vote No was tentative, contingent on an agreement. But the truth is leaking out, making them not only dangerous, partisan obstructionists, but liars as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 2:34 PM GMT
    They are not taking any responsibility for the past eight years. It is so frustrating to watch.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 29, 2009 3:15 PM GMT
    Their grandstanding is an attempt to weaken Obama's approval rating. The stronger the support he has, the weaker the Republicans chances of gaining or holding political ground in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

    This is all about the Republicans and has nothing to do with the legislation. This bill reflects the 4th tax cut this decade and it's clear that tax cuts alone don't stabilize the markets. Government spending CREATES the demand for goods and services (when consumers stop buying) that businesses respond to and thusly stabilizes our dwindling economy. My opinion is that this package isn't enough, but at least it's a start.


    Did anyone hear Rep. Dick Armey's sexist comment last night on the Chris Matthews show, Hardball?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 3:49 PM GMT
    I was a Rep. when G. Bush came into office (no I didn't vote for him). I changed to Democrat when he passed the FMA.

    As I sit here now and look at the Rep. I see the same thoughts and processes that put us into the Great Depression.

    They ask how are we going to pay it back? I ask them does it matter if Americans are not working. An unemployed worker can't afford to pay taxes.

    The embedded Rep. need to give him a chance and stop voting party lines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 3:55 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan, and you other commentors, I could not agree with you more. Their actions were based on what they perceive as a vote for their "republican principles" and their "base". They nor their base are getting what they are doing to themselves and the future of their party. The voters gave them a trouncing, thereby sending them a message in a nearly unprecidented way in November, sweeping them, the neocon ideals and their philosophy's out of the way for this much needed change we now have with Obama's administration. Yet even with many of their more clear thinking and well respected leaders, such as Colon Powell telling them to find another path or become irrelevant, they nearly in mass are saying that where they went wrong was in not not being stronger in sticking to their "party principles", their religious far right base. OH WELL !!!! they keep embracing the likes of Palin, and their southern bible belt base to their own demise, their doing so has brought out the youth interest in a progressive movement that will usher in a better future for all of us. Keep it up repugs your paving the way for progressives to make lots of PROGRESS !!!!
    Coolarmydude -- I missed Dick Armey's statement, what was it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
    You would think the Republicans would have learned something from this calamity. It leaked out that the two leading Repubs were ready to announce their opposition to Obama's plan before he even announced it!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 4:03 PM GMT
    Is it true that Obama's stimulus package will not show any noticeable affect for an estimated 3 years? It seems as if he is pushing ahead with saving all these major companies. Am I the only one who says fuckem and thinks these companies should fail? I think these mega corporations got greedy and effed up. They should be allowed to fail and I am certain there are other companies out there ready to move in. Those who lose their jobs will be picked up by companies looking to capitalize on the failed mega companies. Assuming they are worth hiring. Hopefully this transfer of power will be the end of unions. I am anti-union and I don't think Gov should be so involved in the private sector.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 29, 2009 4:06 PM GMT
    Dick Armey's sexist comment here:




    I was listening to the program while on the computer when I heard the comment and I said out loud, "Well that was sexist!" Something else I noticed in the clip and didn't notice when it occurred live, mainly because I was reacting to the sexist comment, was that Armey called the guest a political hack. This is exactly what happens when Republicans are backed into a wall, so to speak, when they realize they lost the debate. They attack the opponent's character.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 29, 2009 4:22 PM GMT
    Well let me say I can be a critic of the democrats (for which I am one). In these times, we must keep "pork" to a minimum. I don't think we needed new grass turf for the national mall (albeit I think the area is wonderful) and we do need to be reasonable with expenditures..... where we weren't over the last 8 years.....

    But Obama went to the Republicans, made some changes to get support and instead... every member got their marching orders and they rejected it.
    I find it very frustrating since we see an attempt here by Obama to bridge the partisan divide and we can see how it is playing out.. at least this time.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 29, 2009 4:29 PM GMT
    To be honest, I don't think Obama's intent of being bi-partisan is to get Republicans on board with the legislation. He is masterfully engaging in their resistance to make them look worse to Americans. His engagement of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates that exactly. The more the focus is on Rush Limbaugh and the unsatisfied, non-supporting Republicans, the less connected Republicans are with the Independent middle. Elections are won or lost in the middle.

    This is psychological political warfare and the Republicans don't even know it yet. It's a mental trap.
  • shoelessj

    Posts: 511

    Jan 29, 2009 4:36 PM GMT
    Do you honestly believe that the republicans were going to support this president? Yeah, i know, some of us had hoped that both parties would have gotten past the pettiness to work together and do the work for the american people, and not their respective parties, but i'm not surprised. Disappointed, yeah, but not entirely surprised.

    I have a couple friends who were gung ho about mccain/palin and if it wasn't for the fact that they are otherwise decent people, volunteering, always there as friends, i would be seriously re-thinking my friendship with them, since they also from before inauguration day even, have been criticizing obama, putting silly little 'FBO' icons on their facebook pages, saying 'I hope he fails,' and other such petty, sore loser things.

    Like McCain, who criticized the stimulus plan on FOX, picking out $6 billion for broadband internet. He sort of chuckled and got his mean face on, but, then i see on the rachel maddow show, that while he was campaigning, he specifically mentioned improving internet/broadband access to all of america. But when it's part of obama's plan, it's silly and unnescessary.

    Hypocrites. This whole 'Country First' thing meant nothing to the, it was just a slogan. If they really were 'Country First' people, they'd put aside this party posturing and do the work they were elected to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 5:22 PM GMT
    The stimulus package is a good idea, however, when large spending bills like this are developed quickly there is a signficant risk that money will be wasted. If that is what the Republicans are balking at then they are doing their job. If they are rejecting it to play "silly bugger" then they are not doing the country any favours.

    From what I gathered watching Bloomberg this morning, the bill will likely be revised in the Senate. Hopefully the Federal government will flow money to the states quickly in order to get the infrastructure projects underway. And hopefully the infrastructure projects are going to increase economic activity going forward (no "bridges to nowhere").

    I can hardly wait until the discussion of paying for entitlements like social security and medicare starts in earnest.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 29, 2009 5:24 PM GMT
    SurrealLife said, "I can hardly wait until the discussion of paying for entitlements like social security and medicare starts in earnest."


    Oh wait until the healthcare debate starts this year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 5:54 PM GMT
    Could it possibly be - just possibly - that one or more of these Republican congressmen want a better understanding of exactly how (ok - not exactly but some explanation) spending $819B will generate 3 million jobs. This has never been done before - yet we are rushing at it full speed - with no one asking the tough questions.

    I recall something similar happening after 9/11 - a sense of urgency to do SOMETHING - no one dare challenging the radical uncharted ideas put fourth - and as a result we have the (un) Patriot Act and a prolonged costly war in Iraq.

    Our congressmen and senators are suppose to scrutinize and challenge the Executive Branch. This is especially important when entering uncharted waters.

    What is it about any of our government agencies and the way they have conducted themselves that gives you confidence they can prudently and efficiently spend or release this money in a manner that is responsible, efficient and for its intended purpose?

    We don't put medicine in our bodies without massive testing - toys don't go on shelves without in depth market analysis - yet we are prepared to throw $819 Billion at this massive unprecedented economic problem without so much as a good debate. Stunning!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 29, 2009 5:58 PM GMT
    gr8tswim saidCould it possibly be - just possibly - that one or more of these Republican congressmen want a better understanding of exactly how (ok - not exactly but some explanation) spending $819B will generate 3 million jobs. This has never been done before - yet we are rushing at it full speed - with no one asking the tough questions.

    I recall something similar happening after 9/11 - a sense of urgency to do SOMETHING - no one dare challenging the radical uncharted ideas put fourth - and as a result we have the (un) Patriot Act and a prolonged costly war in Iraq.
    Stunning!


    Probably a prudent suggestion... but the "lockstep" approach to reject is what I find unfortunate.... and remember if we always take the time and scrutinize... things like the "New Deal" would probably still be in debate in congress...LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 6:12 PM GMT
    "Probably a prudent suggestion... but the "lockstep" approach to reject is what I find unfortunate.... and remember if we always take the time and scrutinize... things like the "New Deal" would probably still be in debate in congress...LOL"

    History has proven the "New Deal" was a complete economic failure. Had it not been for WWII and the economic boom from the industrial war machine we would have had a real mess on our hands - spent tons of money without the expected turnaround. That is what makes this really sad - we have a lesson in history - yet still no one asks the tough questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 6:28 PM GMT
    I can understand where the GOP is coming from. They have 20 fewer representatives and eight fewer senators and they lose the white house. They want to show the rest of congress that they may be down but they are not defeated. The Dems still have to play nice and reach across the aisle or they will take their ball and go home.

    That sort of spectacle would have been fine had the economy been alright and the President had chosen some fluff bit of legislation to try and push through as part of his platform, like gun law reform. Instead, we are in an economic crisis and swift action is needed. The GOP spokesman on the floor, Jeff Flake, showed he did not possess even a basic level of understanding of economics. The Dems took out a lot of stuff the GOP objected to and still they wasted time for their grand bit of drama.

    And what is the effect? Obama's approval rating is over 70% and congress is still hovering around 20%. I hope this bites them in the ass in two years.

    The senate does not have the same party discipline/partisanship, nor can they afford to. Arlen Specter is up for reelection and considered a prime target to topple. Obama won his state by ten points, can he really afford the same temper tantrum?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 6:57 PM GMT
    gr8tswim said"Probably a prudent suggestion... but the "lockstep" approach to reject is what I find unfortunate.... and remember if we always take the time and scrutinize... things like the "New Deal" would probably still be in debate in congress...LOL"

    History has proven the "New Deal" was a complete economic failure. Had it not been for WWII and the economic boom from the industrial war machine we would have had a real mess on our hands - spent tons of money without the expected turnaround. That is what makes this really sad - we have a lesson in history - yet still no one asks the tough questions.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You had my ear and my attention with going forward cautiously, if that were the case with the repugs going into this it would have gone different, but they made it plain that their interests were elsewhere, that is on their being partisan for the sake of their united "party stand">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you really lost my support for what your saying with saying that FDR's New Deal was a failure. WHAT ???? educators, historical buffs, political historians and all but the most partisan republicans credit the new deal with being the begining of the turn around for the american worker to come out of the depression, we still are using the improvements that came from the WPA workers projects. Yes the war brought about the final impetus to invigorate the economy, but the New Deal was anything but a failure !! some of our best programs and improvements for workers came from it. Your way off on this !!!
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jan 29, 2009 7:01 PM GMT
    gr8tswim said

    History has proven the "New Deal" was a complete economic failure. Had it not been for WWII and the economic boom from the industrial war machine we would have had a real mess on our hands - spent tons of money without the expected turnaround. That is what makes this really sad - we have a lesson in history - yet still no one asks the tough questions.


    The first part of your response was a quote from me there gr8tswim.......

    I beg to differ with you, the "New Deal" wasn't a failure.. it wasn't perfect, but not a failure.. parts of it were totally successful.
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jan 29, 2009 7:13 PM GMT
    Alright, here's another bunch of information (hopefully factual) that perplexes me about the "Stimulus Package" and it's "immediate" rescue of the economy and instant creation of million of jobs (seems doubtful according to this):

    An overoptimistic stimulus plan
    http://www.boston.com/bostongl...istic_stimulus_plan/

    Excerpt:
    According to the CBO, less than half of the $355 billion the bill allocates to infrastructure and other "discretionary" projects would actually be spent by the end of 2010; of that, a mere $26 billion would be spent in the current fiscal year. "The rest would come in future years," the Washington Post reported, "long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended." (Congressional Democrats expressed great displeasure with the CBO’s findings, and the report was mysterious yanked off the Internet. A new version appeared yesterday with -- presto! -- numbers more to the Democrats’ liking.)

    Wasn't the whole point of turbocharging this stimulus bill - recall that President Obama had originally hoped it would be ready for his signature on Inauguration Day - that there is no time to waste in pumping these funds into the economy? "If we do not act boldly and swiftly," the president warned in his weekly address on Saturday, "a bad situation could become dramatically worse."

    Yet, of the $30 billion the House bill allots for highway projects, less than $4 billion would be spent before 2011, according to the CBO’s original calculcations. Of $18.5 billion earmarked for renewable energy, less than $3 billion would make it through the pipeline within two years. Of $14 billion for school construction, only half would be used by the end of next year. The administration claims that vast fiscal intervention is urgently required to "save or create" as many as 4 million jobs by the end of next year. Even if you buy the Keynesian argument that mammoth deficit spending will jump-start economic growth, it's tough to see how it does so by the end of next year if most of the outlays only occur thereafter.

    _----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And now for something different:

    I looked at the list of line by line items (at least in an earlier version of the bill) and was confused. Many/most of the line items were funding for already existing government programs -- not increases necessarily, just funding as part of the stimulus package which is being touted as the new rescue attempt. But wait -- those programs/agencies/recipients at state and local levels are already part of the federal annual budget -- so why put them over here in a "stimulus package" bill rather than in the regular annual budget request to Congress? Is this some sort of smoke and mirrors tactic?

    I support the federal funding of so many of those projects and programs, military construction/government construction and research, etc. That could certainly lead to additional jobs, perhaps retraining for those who've lost their jobs lately. But those are not guarantees -- it could just be maintenance level funding for the government operations already existing, if you get what I mean.

    For example, Child care/Head Start programs for example already are running and will continue to do so. Their existence (due to federal and sometimes state subsidies) can allow many parents to be able to go to work and still afford reasonable child care while they are at work. So feasibly, new people could get jobs and work and earn income, etc. But it's not clear why this example is in a Stimulus Package without much more explanation.

    As I said, the majority of the line items already exist in federal budgets past and present -- why put them into a Stimulus Package and drive the cost of that package up -- is this a ploy to seemingly "lower" government spending on the one hand and hide the expenditures in another more "crucial" package?

    And more than anything, if the money in fact dribbles out over 3 years or more -- how is that really going to make an emergency repair of the ruptured economy and its human victims RIGHT NOW?


    ETA: I was also perplexed by the previous $850B "Bail Out" package which bloomed up to that absurd level with all the added "pork" before it left Congress -- and mostly without question and most of what (maybe 1/2?) has been released so far without controls or oversight, it seems. This is folly!

    Comments are welcome!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 7:19 PM GMT
    I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree - regarding the success or failure of the "New Deal". Though the country truly benefited by the new roads and dams and other WPA projects - on an economic basis - the intended goal of reinvigorating the economy in a sustainable way did not happen. Every piece of economic data proves this. Our economic turnaround came only after the War machine was well underway.

    Anyway - we have different views here. But I'd prefer this did not distract from my main point - this kind of spending deserves some tough questioning and strict accountability - neither which is happening. This is post 9/11 reactionism all over again.
  • TexanMan82

    Posts: 893

    Jan 29, 2009 7:38 PM GMT
    I'm OK with some partisanship. That's basically what our system is founded on. Gridlock is OK. Challenging the Executive is OK.

    The Republicans are grandstanding. That's what politicians do. If you're surprised by this, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2009 7:43 PM GMT
    I find it hard to talk about the "partisanship" in negative terms related to the republicans and not to mention that with few exceptions, all the democrats voted for the bill. Come on, with that many people there must have been more than 11 democrats that weren't happy with the bill...I say partisanship crosses the aisle here. Whether you agree with the package or not and whether you're a democrat, republican or any other party affiliate, it's clear that partisanship is alive and well in the nation's capital and gee...who would have thunk! Kudos for the balls of the 11 democrats to cross the line, whether they're right or wrong, that takes balls.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 30, 2009 1:43 AM GMT
    Ummm, it doesn't take balls to cowtow to the conservative district any one of the 11 Democrats represents. It's the other way.


    The whole purpose of the additional Republican tax cuts is to decrease taxes further for the wealthiest 2% AND to shrink government to the point that it cannot and will not support social issues, which is the only rallying point of the Republicans of late. That is what defines the current Republican grandstanding.