Republicans are they Just being?...

[macfan881]

after seeing this whoe debate going back and forth with the stimulus and then seeing McCain on Cnn this morning im starting to wonder are they really just thinkin this bill is all spend spend spend or are they just Tring to be Sore losers about the last elction and giving it to obama? im looking at it this because obamas worked hard i mean the first few days obama has done pretty much everything trying to get repuplicans to vote and even some republicans added some sections to the bills and then not even voting to it. im really starting to think that there just taking out there anger out on this and i think its just the beging anyway i wanna see what you guys think on this?

here is Cnns interview with McCain to by the way if u havent seen it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html

[trule]

after seeing this whoe debate going back and forth with the stimulus and then seeing McCain on Cnn this morning im starting to wonder are they really just thinkin this bill is all spend spend spend or are they just Tring to be Sore losers about the last elction and giving it to obama? im looking at it this because obamas worked hard i mean the first few days obama has done pretty much everything trying to get repuplicans to vote and even some republicans added some sections to the bills and then not even voting to it. im really starting to think that there just taking out there anger out on this and i think its just the beging anyway i wanna see what you guys think on this?

here is Cnns interview with McCain to by the way if u havent seen it.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html

McCain is confused in general, and Republicans are still adjusting to their new position of NO power.

They were invited to participate, at least by Obama (House democrats are another story...), they provided feedback and got some changes (the bill is less that 800B after all)...but when it came time to vote, well they were never going to win so why not just complain and rehash the old tax cuts for the rich arguments to keep the base happy.

Notice how no one is asking where the 800 Billion is going to come from? Add it to the deficit of ca 400 Billion, the TARP of 700 Billion and the latest rescue package of 1.3 Trillion....that comes to 3.2 TRILLION.

Who has 3.2T spare? Interest alone will be 1.600 per working American per year...are taxes going to go up to cover that?
:mad:

[zap2]

The GOP had some points about the Stimulus package not being all about jobs(I mean it was a small %, but it was there, and the things in there were important) now it just seems like they are dragging their feet


I think perhaps some are doing to make the dems look bad, other aren't supporting it because they think the market should handle it, but won't come out and say thatas some( like Ron Paul, who had at least has the respect to say what he's thinking and be honest about it, even if I disagree with him) because they fear the dems will take it and run with it as the party of "solutions" while the GOP didn't want to do anything

[Malfoy]

ever consider that they just might not like the bill? I'm a republican (not a Bush republican, there is a difference) and I'm not a fan of the bill. I'm not a fan of a lot of things that's been going on though and how the whole thing is being handled.

[NT1440]

ever consider that they just might not like the bill? I'm a republican (not a Bush republican, there is a difference) and I'm not a fan of the bill. I'm not a fan of a lot of things that's been going on though and how the whole thing is being handled.

Well, why throw all those tax cuts that will do nothing, and then vote against it?

They've known from the beginning that they were going to vote no.

[bruinsrme]

I am a republican and I can't help but think we need to do something different. The GOP had a number of years to do something but yet failed.
Either it's the emocrats turn to fail or change the direction of the country.

scott

[zap2]

ever consider that they just might not like the bill?


I'm sure thats part of it, but I assume you'd at least explain why, and then if other parties involved in it changed some of it to your liking(in some way, clearly we can't get everything we want), you'd be willing to go along with it.


But non of the house GOP went with it! At least let use keep a strong bill around if you're not going to vote for it

[iJohnHenry]

Notice how no one is asking where the 800 Billion is going to come from? Add it to the deficit of ca 400 Billion, the TARP of 700 Billion and the latest rescue package of 1.3 Trillion .... that comes to 3.2 TRILLION.

Interest alone will be $1,600 per working American per year ... are taxes going to go up to cover that? :mad:

Fixed, I think?

They are not printing money, they are printing confidence, for if the Consumer does not believe, it will fail.

Something like voodoo. ;)

[mkrishnan]

I think with the stimulus / bailout situation, the problem is that there is no political battle between two competing theories of how to steer the country and world through this crisis -- I would gave neither side credit for having a really coherent plan that is likely to work. I don't blame them, because I don't think that there's really great data for one out there yet.

On the Democratic side (and with Bush before Obama came into office -- so really on the Executive side), the bailouts and stimuli are incredibly problematic -- the strongest evidence from the most similar previous situation is with Japan's previous economic crisis, and although that situation is not the same, that evidence suggests overwhelmingly that this plan will not work. On the other hand, that evidence suggests it because the Japanese tried the same thing and it didn't succeed. To the Exec branch's credit, there's just no data to say how bad things will get if immediate interventions aren't taken, even if they are both extreme and unlikely to solve the problem.

On the Republican side, particularly in Congress, there just isn't any plan. No one aside from Bush and his team in the GOP has really stood up and articulated a plan even at a basic level that is likely to work. Polemics like Ron Paul who complain about how wrong is what is being done still don't offer a better alternative. And doing nothing is incredibly unlikely to be a good strategy.

These trillions of dollars that have been earmarked in the past several months are honestly only about stemming the bloodflow. The only solution out there that really has any evidence in support of it is what Japan did -- nationalize banks and subject both the nationalized ones and the continuing private ones to intense and constant scrutiny that will not end when the economy improves. Even that is not necessarily the way forward in this case, but it's the only thing that has previously solved a problem like this.

[Peace]

Stimulus bimulus. The Republican Party is doing it's best to sabotage the Obama administration. It's blatantly obvious to me.

[leekohler]

Stimulus bimulus. The Republican Party is doing it's best to sabotage the Obama administration. It's blatantly obvious to me.

Of course they are. There's a reason they suddenly have "ethics" again. They have no interest in making anything work. They can't get elected if things go well.

[jonbravo77]

To mkrishnan's post, true nationalizing the banks would probably work but there would be bloody murder screamed at taking away free-markets. I find it interesting that the GOP is screaming that no one has read the new bill but I guess no one read Bush's $700 billion package either but that was passed and we see how well that has done.

I saw something interesting on CNN not to long ago about the bubble that Washington D.C. is in, and not just the politicians, the entire city. The politicians and the the people who work for them help D.C.'s economy and when CNN asked people in D.C. they said they know about the economic woes but don't really feel it. Same goes for the actual politicians, they know about it from what they hear from there constituents and see if they actually do go back to their home states but they live in a bubble up in Washington, they pass judgments and pass mostly useless bills never really understanding what it does, that's if they even read it in the first place.

It was interesting that after the house passed a $819 billion package the first time the GOP was screaming that it was too much but then there is McCain saying that they needed to add $90 billion to the package. Funny if you ask me... It'd be nice if the politicians would just looked around for a few seconds and saw reality instead of being in D.C. amongst all that fantasy...

[Dont Hurt Me]

GOP were spending like drunken sailors for the 6 years they ran all 3 branches. A good portion of this mess we are in is from them and the spend and spend with no accountability they pushed. Hypocrites, McCain is just sad and if the republicans want a lesson on being partison all they have to do is look at themselves during the 6 years of Dubya. They look like a bunch of crybabys , it was fine for them to do this but not the democrats?= Hypocrite. They all suck and im talking both partys.:p

[yg17]

John Boner (thats what I call him) the house minority leader was whining the other day about the fact that the bill provides for a high speed rail link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and he was calling it pork and said something like "How is this going to create jobs in my district?"

It's the typical Republican "Me! Me! Me! I don't give a damn about anyone else!" attitude. Nevermind the fact that it's going to create a ton of jobs and hopefully reduce carbon emissions, he's complaining that this specific thing in the bill won't create jobs in his district, completely ignoring the fact that there are 434 other districts in the country where people are looking desperately for work.

[Rt&Dzine]

It's all politics, of course. Not enough tax cuts for the Republicans. And they don't want to investigate the all unaccounted $$$ that went to Iraq, the unfulfilled Halliburton contracts. The American taxpayer may have been screwed, but Halliburton (Cheney's cronies) sure made a killing from the Iraqi war.

At least the stimulus bill has potential to help. But the pork in the bill bothers me big time.

[Thomas Veil]

John Boner (thats what I call him) the house minority leader was whining the other day about the fact that the bill provides for a high speed rail link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and he was calling it pork and said something like "How is this going to create jobs in my district?"Boehner fries my ass. I'm ashamed to admit he's from my state. :rolleyes:

Notice how no one is asking where the 800 Billion is going to come from? Add it to the deficit of ca 400 Billion, the TARP of 700 Billion and the latest rescue package of 1.3 Trillion....that comes to 3.2 TRILLION.

Who has 3.2T spare? Interest alone will be 1.600 per working American per year...are taxes going to go up to cover that?
:mad:Possibly. The follow-up question is, do Obama and the Democrats have the cajones to raise taxes on the wealthy?

Everyone predicted dire consequences when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, but instead we ended up with a surplus. That won't happen this time, of course, because we're dealing with way bigger numbers, but how many choices do you have?

[MacNut]

Even the mega millionaires lost money, so how much can you tax them?

We have to reform the system before we try to throw money at it. We are just flushing money down the toilet.

[Ugg]

Even the mega millionaires lost money, so how much can you tax them?


Isn't that part of the problem? Entrusting America's financial future to megamillionaires? Ever since Reagan the idea has been that the wealthy will always do what's best for the country. Perhaps it's time to bring back those 50% tax rates for the richest 5% and start killing off tax shelters.

[MacNut]

Isn't that part of the problem? Entrusting America's financial future to megamillionaires? Ever since Reagan the idea has been that the wealthy will always do what's best for the country. Perhaps it's time to bring back those 50% tax rates for the richest 5% and start killing off tax shelters.I agree that the middle class should run the country and not the super rich. But the rich are the ones that have the power, it doesn't matter what side of the isle.

[chrmjenkins]

I agree with the comment that we are basically sailing into uncharted waters with this type of package. However, if it hits at the right time (where the natural swing was going to occur), it should hopefully fast track the country. Given the 6-18 month time frame it will take for parts of the bill to have effect, I think/hope it may actually be hitting at the right time.

That being said, I still have a bitter taste in my mouth about all of this. We're amassing trillions in debt which will take decades to take care of. We can't always count on being the top dog with someone like China itching to give us liquidity.

As for what the republicans did, I see the typical partisan divide. We know that their voice was heard (making the bill go under the 800B mark), but they still shunned it. We can probably expect this to continue so they can persist in accusing the Obama administration of being full of it when it comes to reaching across the aisle.

[CalBoy]

ever consider that they just might not like the bill? I'm a republican (not a Bush republican, there is a difference) and I'm not a fan of the bill. I'm not a fan of a lot of things that's been going on though and how the whole thing is being handled.

I'm sure the Republicans didn't like the original bill, but they did get many concessions from the House, Senate, and final versions.

What's more, the House and Senate GOP caucuses were threatening members by saying that a "yes" vote would cost them. The GOP as a party clearly did not want to put its support behind the bill.

In the end, the GOP was essentially a part of a basic prisoner's dilemma.

If they voted for it, and it worked, the Democrats would get all the credit and the GOP would still suffer in 2010 and 2012.

If they voted for it, and it didn't work, both parties would be blamed and in the current political atmosphere, that's a mild advantage for the Democrats.

If they voted against it, and it worked, the Democrats would get all the credit and the GOP would still suffer in 2010 and 2012.

If they voted against it, and it didn't work, the GOP would be able to use the bill as a campaign issue and possibly make gains in 2010 or 2012.

In either case, the best choice is to vote against the bill for the GOP, no matter how much of it is "Republican" in nature. It's simple politics, and I can't blame the GOP for being cautious.

I do blame Obama for being naive, however. He knew this was going to happen (or he should have known), and the current stimulus bill is far more "tax cuts" oriented than he or Pelosi had wanted.

[zap2]

But the rich are the ones that have the power, it doesn't matter what side of the isle.

I mean Obama and Biden are wealth, but they aren't billionaires

(thats true for other politicians as well, just example I came up with)

[MooneyFlyer]

Let's keep in mind that the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate for some time now. Yes there was a Republican President but he does not write the bills -- he signs / vetoes them.

The system is complex for a reason. And, the President is the figurehead of the System. Right now the system (at least this part of it) is run by the Democrats. They can pass anything they want without regard for the Republicans and this is just part of life. If the system, as it stands today, doesn't work for the American people -- we will change how it is comprised. But, the basic system stays the same.

Personally, I'm for a flat tax. Does that make me a Democrat or a Republican -- I'm not sure. I just am certain I paid my fair share plus some this year and will be attempting to take my chunk out of the newly acquired debt for the country.

[Thomas Veil]

Even the mega millionaires lost money, so how much can you tax them?At first, not much, you're right. But the rich will bounce back from this depression, the way everyone else eventually will, and then you would be able to collect more. The debt this bill is helping create isn't going away anytime soon.

Let's keep in mind that the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate for some time now. ...Right now the system (at least this part of it) is run by the Democrats. They can pass anything they want without regard for the Republicans and this is just part of life.Well, not quite. The Dems have only had Congress since the 2006 election, and even then the Senate was a 50-50 split. They still don't have a filibuster-proof majority, which means they can't just pass anything they want.

As for what the republicans did, I see the typical partisan divide. We know that their voice was heard (making the bill go under the 800B mark), but they still shunned it. We can probably expect this to continue so they can persist in accusing the Obama administration of being full of it when it comes to reaching across the aisle.As you were saying... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html)

..."If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country's screwed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told ABC's "This Week." "I know bipartisanship when I see it."

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Obama was off to "a bad beginning," out of step with the vow of bipartisanship both men made after Obama beat out the Republican presidential nominee for the White House in November....

[macfan881]

this is the thing that Drives me nuts the Republicans are bashing at this kind of stuff but yet some one point out in the last 8 years Bush has ever done anything like this in terms of bipartasan to get Democrats to get on something all i ever saw Bush doing was using the normal fear tatics that usaully come out of the repuplicans.

[mgguy]

... all i ever saw Bush doing was using the normal fear tactics that usaully come out of the republicans.

And now Obama is using "fear tactics" to persuade the country to back his spending/stimulus/bailout plans.

[CalBoy]

And now Obama is using "fear tactics" to persuade the country to back his spending/stimulus/bailout plans.

Did you happen to see the press conference? A 7-minute detailed look into the economy with raw data.

Either that's one impressive fear tactic, or we are living our nightmares.

[jonbravo77]

Hmmmm, fear tactic on backing a stimulus plan or fear tactic that gets us into a war based on false pretense in which a good portion of the world now hates us for... hmmmm, decisions decisions.... Oh, I forgot is one of the reasons why we are in this financial mess, not the whole reason but a contributor non-the-less...

[macfan881]

And now Obama is using "fear tactics" to persuade the country to back his spending/stimulus/bailout plans.

yes but atleast his Tatics can be true

bushes was all based on a lie and didnt need to happen

[Rt&Dzine]

And now Obama is using "fear tactics" to persuade the country to back his spending/stimulus/bailout plans.

Fear tactics? :confused: Are you denying that we've got a big problem here? Or saying that we should just ignore it?

[mgguy]

Did you happen to see the press conference? A 7-minute detailed look into the economy with raw data.

Either that's one impressive fear tactic, or we are living our nightmares.

Are you suggesting that holding a 7-minute news conference is sufficient to disqualify it as a fear tactic? Bush and his representatives held several press conferences leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They also presented intelligence findings and other raw data to justify the actions they were proposing and ultimately took (with the support of the vast majority of members of both houses of Congress). So by your definition, that was not a fear tactic either.

Fear tactics? :confused: Are you denying that we've got a big problem here? Or saying that we should just ignore it?

No one is denying that our economy is not in good shape, and few are saying that the best way to help it recover is to do nothing. However, many have argued that the spending package that was passed will not accomplish its goals and could even make things worse. Obama played on the fears that people have over the crisis by turning a crisis into a potential catastrophe and saying that the economy might never recover if the spending plan wasn't approved. He hyped fear to make people feel a sense of urgency in passing the speeding package rather than consider other options that might be more effective. He could not afford politically to wait any longer on getting spending legislation passed. We heard the same dire warnings by Paulson et al. to get the $700B financial bailout package passed, and that arguably has not worked out as planned. I suspect we will get another round of fear-based lectures in support of the Treasury's as-yet-undefined financial stimulus/bailout plan.

[hulugu]

Are you suggesting that holding a 7-minute news conference is sufficient to disqualify it as a fear tactic? Bush and his representatives held several press conferences leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They also presented intelligence findings and other raw data to justify the actions they were proposing and ultimately took (with the support of the vast majority of members of both houses of Congress). So by your definition, that was not a fear tactic either.

The Bush conferences never presented "raw data" but rather an interpretation of that data. Of course, that's to be expected when dealing with intelligence information versus economic data, but let's be careful about our definitions.

Otherwise, I fear the analogy is correct. The administration's use of terms like catastrophe are fear-mongering and could be analogous to the use of "smoking gun is a mushroom cloud" line.

[trule]

Fear tactics? :confused: Are you denying that we've got a big problem here? Or saying that we should just ignore it?

You could argue that the big problem was caused by too much borrowing, and the rescue packages are all designed to restore credit markets or in other words create borrowing....so I would say the problem is being ignored quite successfully :cool:

The solution to too much credit is less credit, unfortunately the political system relies on more credit to inflate away previous debts. Both parties benefit from this decades long scam...

The US and several other states are in a debt trap, attempting to borrow 3 TRILLION from a World that has its own problems to deal with should be interesting if nothing else.

[TSE]

Fear tactics? :confused: Are you denying that we've got a big problem here? Or saying that we should just ignore it?

The whole reason our economy is down the shutters in the first place is too much government intervention with the Clinton and Bush administrations.

[Rt&Dzine]

The whole reason our economy is down the shutters in the first place is too much government intervention with the Clinton and Bush administrations.

More specifically — NAFTA, the Iraq War, and deregulation.

Interesting about NAFTA, Hillary Clinton served on Wal-Mart’s board for six years prior to her husband’s run for the presidency. Big Wal-Mart / NAFTA connection. But also the Bush administration didn't keep NAFTA under control.

I agree with hulugu comment below.

[hulugu]

The whole reason our economy is down the shutters in the first place is too much government intervention with the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Nope. You can't winnow such a complex system down to one or two effects. There were a series of problems, including government intervention and a lack of real government oversight.

[CalBoy]

Are you suggesting that holding a 7-minute news conference is sufficient to disqualify it as a fear tactic?

The news conference was much longer; Obama spent 7 minutes going over specific details about the condition of the economy with raw data to back himself up.

Imagine if Bush had spent half that time going over where the WMD were in Iraq...

They also presented intelligence findings and other raw data

That wasn't raw data at all. The WMDs never materialized did they? Obama's numbers weren't generated by his administration, they were generated by the people tasked with watching the economy.

So maybe if Bush had used UN footage/evidence to justify Iraq, we'd have a parallel situation.

[hulugu]

The news conference was much longer; Obama spent 7 minutes going over specific details about the condition of the economy with raw data to back himself up.

Imagine if Bush had spent half that time going over where the WMD were in Iraq...



That wasn't raw data at all. The WMDs never materialized did they? Obama's numbers weren't generated by his administration, they were generated by the people tasked with watching the economy.

So maybe if Bush had used UN footage/evidence to justify Iraq, we'd have a parallel situation.


That was exactly my point, intelligence data is often a series of guess and inferences mixed with some specifics. You can't reasonably make an apples to apples comparison between the economic data passed on by Obama and the intelligence about Iraq's capabilities as described by Bush.

And, that's before we start discussing whether or not the data is tainted by political pressure or ginned-up entirely.

[trule]

That wasn't raw data at all. The WMDs never materialized did they? Obama's numbers weren't generated by his administration, they were generated by the people tasked with watching the economy.

So maybe if Bush had used UN footage/evidence to justify Iraq, we'd have a parallel situation.

Iraq did at one stage have WMD, however after the first Gulf war they destroyed them quietly and acted like they had them to dissuade Iran etc from attacking.

Bush knew Iraq had WMD at some stage because the US Government approved the sale of the WMD to the Iraq Government in the first place...

[NT1440]

Iraq did at one stage have WMD, however after the first Gulf war they destroyed them quietly and acted like they had them to dissuade Iran etc from attacking.

Bush knew Iraq had WMD at some stage because the US Government approved the sale of the WMD to the Iraq Government in the first place...

evidence?

[CalBoy]

Iraq did at one stage have WMD, however after the first Gulf war they destroyed them quietly and acted like they had them to dissuade Iran etc from attacking.

Bush knew Iraq had WMD at some stage because the US Government approved the sale of the WMD to the Iraq Government in the first place...

Note that that doesn't mean Bush had evidence of WMDs in 2002/2003, when he made his case. That's at issue here, not whether or not Iraq ever had such weapons.

[trule]

evidence?

Sorry, you live in America, its old news in the rest of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990#Arms_suppliers_to_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War)

Or try this (Rumsfeld was a regular in Iraq during the mid 80's):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities"

Media and criminal investigations of U.S. companies that had exported weapons-related or dual-use items to Iraq were conducted after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Many of these companies seemed to have connections with former U.S. government officials

This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.


You get the idea. This is how Governments work, its not just US that plays these games mind you.

I mean, you don't think the Iraq war was about democracy do you ?

[trule]

Note that that doesn't mean Bush had evidence of WMDs in 2002/2003, when he made his case. That's at issue here, not whether or not Iraq ever had such weapons.

But he also did not have evidence that they were destroyed, and that was enough for Bush who was just looking for a reason, any reason.

[freeny]

people seem to be going out of their way here to equate Obama to Bush. Revenge?

Why dont the states that have Republican representation just refuse the money? They dont have to take it you know...

[NT1440]

Sorry, you live in America, its old news in the rest of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990#Arms_suppliers_to_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War)

Or try this (Rumsfeld was a regular in Iraq during the mid 80's):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/








You get the idea. This is how Governments work, its not just US that plays these games mind you.

I mean, you don't think the Iraq war was about democracy do you ?
Srry, I just asked because I was like, 5 at the time and we NEVER went over this in school.

[mgguy]

Why dont the states that have Republican representation just refuse the money? They dont have to take it you know...

States many not have to take it, but the people living there or their offspring will have to help pay it back eventually. Even if they could completely opt out of receiving and paying, they would still be directly affected by the impact it will have on the general economy, which might not be good.

[Thomas Veil]

I'd hate to be one of the very few governors who is thinking of turning down this money. I'd hate to have to face the wrath of unemployed, unhappy voters who will ask, "Are you nuts?!?!?"

[Rt&Dzine]

evidence?

There was NO evidence of WMD when Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Period. He used fear tactics to garner support for the Iraq invasion. (Remember our enemy Bin Laden who was conveniently replaced with new enemy Hussein?) I don't see a valid comparison between Obama trying to get support for a plan to fix our dismal economy with Bush using fear to unnecessarily invade a country.

[mactastic]

John Boner (thats what I call him)...
Hey, I was always taught in school that "when two vowels go a-walking, the first one does the talking". :p

Right now the system (at least this part of it) is run by the Democrats. They can pass anything they want without regard for the Republicans and this is just part of life.
Perhaps you can be good enough to explain for us exactly why Obama needed at least 2 GOP senators to get this legislation passed, if the Democrats can "pass anything they want without regard for the Republicans"?

Obama played on the fears that people have over the crisis by turning a crisis into a potential catastrophe and saying that the economy might never recover if the spending plan wasn't approved.
Well then, to be fair, you'd also have to say that the GOP was playing on people's fears by saying that this stimulus package would do nothing and simply burden taxpayers with it's cost for years.

[Desertrat]

macfan881, is it not true that the justification for the stimulus bill was "save jobs and create jobs"? And, of that, was not it stated that a very important part was for "shovel-ready infrastructure projects"?

"Earned income tax credits" is giving money to folks who didn't pay taxes. How does that save a job or create a job? Or, any money for extension of unemployment benefits? Or, for food stamps? I've nothing against such spending, but those do not belong in this particular bill.

Only some four percent of the money is for infrastructure: $35 billion. Of that, some $8 billion is for high speed rail to take Mickey Mouse from Disneyland to a Las Vegas slot machine. Duh? A vetted, justified route? Shovel-ready? B-effing-S.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has claimed that our infrastructure of highways, dams, pipelines and other facilities need an investment of around a trillion greenies per year for ten years to merely play catch-up in needed maintenance. PLUS future needs of new construction.

I see this bill as a vote-buying, feel-good bill which does little to save or create jobs. I oppose it as being terminally horrible. And, sold via misrepresentation, to be uber-polite in describing the political spin. It's easy for any conservative type to be against such a foolish addition to the existing 2.3 trillion dollars in deficit we've accumulated these last few month.

[rdowns]

Only some four percent of the money is for infrastructure: $35 billion. Of that, some $8 billion is for high speed rail to take Mickey Mouse from Disneyland to a Las Vegas slot machine. Duh? A vetted, justified route? Shovel-ready? B-effing-S.



There is no mention of an Anaheim-Las Vegas high speed rail in the bill.

Reporting from Washington -- A proposed Anaheim-to-Las Vegas high-speed train became a hot topic as Congress prepared to pass an economic recovery bill.

In reality, not a word about the train appears in the 1,000-plus page, $787-billion bill that Congress passed Friday night.


However, the bill does provide $8 billion for unspecified high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects, more than three times as much as allocated in earlier versions of the legislation.

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus-rail14-2009feb14,0,2367517.story)

[Desertrat]

Thanks for the correction about the route. However, do you know of any "shovel-ready" high speed rail projects? Remember, Obama emphasized "shovel-ready". IOW, a few million might be spent on planning and EIS, but that's a far cry from "$8 billion".

To interject a personal opinion: Infrastructure projects are intended for decades of use. If we're going to spend $8 billion on rail, shouldn't it be for projects which allow for changing times? That is, we must continue move goods. If we still had the old days' railroads in place as we once did, we would not be as dependent on trucks--because we're gonna run really, really low on oil in another several years. Gotta figure out how to move people, too, when personal transportation is limited to the rich and the elected. And you can build a helluva lot more miles of present-style railroad for a given amount of money than you can the neatsy-poo high-speed line. Something to consider when you're broke and in debt.

'Rat

[mactastic]

macfan881, is it not true that the justification for the stimulus bill was "save jobs and create jobs"? And, of that, was not it stated that a very important part was for "shovel-ready infrastructure projects"?

"Earned income tax credits" is giving money to folks who didn't pay taxes. How does that save a job or create a job? Or, any money for extension of unemployment benefits? Or, for food stamps? I've nothing against such spending, but those do not belong in this particular bill.

Only some four percent of the money is for infrastructure: $35 billion. Of that, some $8 billion is for high speed rail to take Mickey Mouse from Disneyland to a Las Vegas slot machine. Duh? A vetted, justified route? Shovel-ready? B-effing-S.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has claimed that our infrastructure of highways, dams, pipelines and other facilities need an investment of around a trillion greenies per year for ten years to merely play catch-up in needed maintenance. PLUS future needs of new construction.

I see this bill as a vote-buying, feel-good bill which does little to save or create jobs. I oppose it as being terminally horrible. And, sold via misrepresentation, to be uber-polite in describing the political spin. It's easy for any conservative type to be against such a foolish addition to the existing 2.3 trillion dollars in deficit we've accumulated these last few month.
Blame fiscal conservatives for all the tax cuts in this stimulus bill. They were the ones who insisted on including a huge chunk of them. What does an AMT fix for this year have to do with stimulus? Dunno. Ask the Senate GOP. They're the ones who insisted on including it in this bill.