Onesided bipartisanship

[Miles Teg]

So the stimulus bill passed the house. A victory for Obama, no? Questionably, as the fact turns out. Obama has been courting Republicans on this bill since long before Day 1. He has wide majorities in Congress and a high approval rating, he can spend political capital in a way that would make Bush or Clinton's eyes pop. Yet he compromised at every step with Republicans, a decision that can only be credited to a genuine desire to see this bill pass with support from both sides of the aisle.

He all but bent over backwards, slashing infrastructure spending and other basic tenants of stimulus. He filled the bill with taxcuts, which study after study shows do not work. When Republicans came back with some nitpicky complaint about a dollop of money for family planning, he cut it out and apologized. He met with the House Republican Caucus, when he hasn't extended the same favor to his own party. He gave Republicans (please, let's not quibble over Gate's de jure political identification) more spots on his cabinet than he did liberal Democrats. I challenge you to find that example of a president governing so instinctively from the center.

And then he asked the House Republicans to vote for his stimulus package. Most people support it, approval is leading disapproval by 17 points. and what did the GOP do? They spat in the faces of the President, the People, and the ideal of bi-partisanship. They voted against it. Every. Single. One. This is not a principled stand, this is not an irreconcilable difference of opinion, this is Republicans refusing to give one inch of ground to a president and a party which has broader support than Reagan.

And of course, there's the fundamental hypocrisy of it. If Obama fails, it will be most principally because he put ineffective tax cuts into his bill instead of sturdy, practical infrastructure investment that will benefit us, our children and our grandchildren. And Republicans will crow from the roof tops that they saw it coming. That they were the ones that could clearly see the hidden doom in the fog of legislative spending.

And they'll be right. Because they were the ones embracing it, demanding favors for it, and then abandoning it at the most convenient moment.

 

[Cutlass]

Republicans think that their future power depends on them hanging tough. Obama should tell them that they are welcome to participate, but will be ignored if they choose not to.

 

[emzie]

The Democrats should just scrap what passed and start over. If the other party doesn't want to have any say in what passes in Congress for the next two years, then don't give them any.

 

[MrPopov]

They have no reason to vote for it politically.

If the stimulis package succeeds, Obama gets all the credit anyway whether they voted for it or not.

If it fails, they can say "see we told you so"

EDIT: ok after reading your entire post I noticed that you already made that point...

Err I have nothing more to contribute then.

 

[Masquerouge]

It might be possible that this was a test by Obama. "okay let's see if you guys want to cooperate, and I'm gonna make the first step".

Now that he has his answer, let's see how he acts in the coming months.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

This is gonna sound crazy, but the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan is actually pretty truly bipartisan.

 

[JerichoHill]

Cutting Corporate and Capital Gains Taxes really helps the poor and middle class...

I think I like the version the house republicans were pitching alot better

 

[BSmith1068]

It's going to be very interesting to see how Obama responds. The Republicans are playing a dangerous game here. Obama and the Dems do not need them to do what they want, but want to involve them. If they don't want to play - they don't matter. Their best chance to make positive impact on the country is to participate, not to isolate themselves.

 

[Cattivo]

It's a horrible bill, filled mostly with pork.

It's supposed to be a stimulus & job creation bill, yet it's loaded with funding for Global Warming research, ACORN, the NEA, and originally had funding for contraception. What does any of that have to do with improving the economy?!

I applaud Obama for trying to appease us republicans, but it's simply a bad bill that will increase our debt further, & cause rampant inflation, when we're already at risk of high inflation thanks to Bush's high deficit spending.

He filled the bill with taxcuts, which study after study shows do not work.

According to biased studies sure, but not according to the ones I've seen and what I've witnessed in real life during my lifetime.

 

[Mark1031]

And of course, there's the fundamental hypocrisy of it. If Obama fails, it will be most principally because he put ineffective tax cuts into his bill instead of sturdy, practical infrastructure investment that will benefit us, our children and our grandchildren. And Republicans will crow from the roof tops that they saw it coming. That they were the ones that could clearly see the hidden doom in the fog of legislative spending.

And they'll be right. Because they were the ones embracing it, demanding favors for it, and then abandoning it at the most convenient moment.

Just like they crowed that the Clinton tax increase of '93 was going to destroy the economy. I mean how many times can you be wrong and still have any support.

This is the problem with Washington and has been since Clinton. It is purely the Republicans that are uncompromising and uncooperative. Look, when Reagan got in he got his huge tax cuts from a Dem congress. When Clinton got in he got not a single Rep vote for his plan. And constant spurious investigations to boot. When Bush got in he got his tax cuts (granted a Rep congress) but I'm sure with significant dem votes. Now Obama gets in and is really trying to be as concillitory and bipartisan as he can running up to the hill to meet with Republicans, having them over to the WH, changing the bill for them and what does he get 0 votes.


Man these guys need to be spanked further out of office before they can become responsible legislators again.

 

[Miles Teg]

Cutting Corporate and Capital Gains Taxes really helps the poor and middle class...

I think I like the version the house republicans were pitching alot better

Wait, what? I hate to get into an argument with an economist, but aren't tax cuts less bang for buck than infrastructure investment, at least during a recession?

 

[Cattivo]

his is the problem with Washington and has been since Clinton. It is purely the Republicans that are uncompromising and uncooperative.

I guess you weren't paying attention when the Dems were obstructing almost everything in 2001-2006.

Just like they crowed that the Clinton tax increase of '93 was going to destroy the economy. I mean how many times can you be wrong and still have any support.

Actually, economic data shows that the economy had already rebounded by the time Clinton took office - actually even before the election took place. Then, his stim package actually slowed the growth until the economy exploded from internet ventures.

 

[general_kill]

It's a horrible bill, filled mostly with pork.

It's supposed to be a stimulus & job creation bill, yet it's loaded with funding for Global Warming research, ACORN, the NEA, and originally had funding for contraception. What does any of that have to do with improving the economy?!

I applaud Obama for trying to appease us republicans, but it's simply a bad bill that will increase our debt further, & cause rampant inflation, when we're already at risk of high inflation thanks to Bush's high deficit spending.



According to biased studies sure, but not according to the ones I've seen and what I've witnessed in real life during my lifetime.

Family planning related programs will help the general well being of our society in the long run. It's a hard political sell because the gains of such bills will not be evident for nearly 2 decades and the moral controversy that comes with it can torpedo a political career in mere days.

Less unwanted babies = less crime, more productivity per capita, less welfare dependents, etc.

 

[luiz]

He all but bent over backwards, slashing infrastructure spending and other basic tenants of stimulus. He filled the bill with taxcuts, which study after study shows do not work.

If you had been following the debates over the stimulus package, instead of reading left-wing blogs, you'd realise that the reason people are talking about tax cuts now is precisely because they have been showed to work better. Infra-structure spending has a huge lag; most of the money would only be spent by 2011.

Plus many studies point out that the multiplier of such spending is actually smaller than that of tax cuts.

 

[GenMarshall]

And then he asked the House Republicans to vote for his stimulus package. Most people support it, approval is leading disapproval by 17 points. and what did the GOP do? They spat in the faces of the President, the People, and the ideal of bi-partisanship. They voted against it. Every. Single. One. This is not a principled stand, this is not an irreconcilable difference of opinion, this is Republicans refusing to give one inch of ground to a president and a party which has broader support than Reagan.

That's what the Republicans did. Spat in the eye of President Obama and the idea of bipartisanship. This only proves that the sitting Republicans in the House are stubborn.

 

[Cattivo]

Family planning related programs will help the general well being of our society in the long run. It's a hard political sell because the gains of such bills will not be evident for nearly 2 decades and the moral controversy that comes with it can torpedo a political career in mere days.

Less unwanted babies = less crime, more productivity per capita, less welfare dependents, etc.

I'm sorry, I refuse to let my tax money pay for other peoples' lifestyles.

 

[Miles Teg]

If you had been following the debates over the stimulus package, instead of reading left-wing blogs, you'd realise that the reason people are talking about tax cuts now is precisely because they have been showed to work better. Infra-structure spending has a huge lag; most of the money would only be spent by 2011.

Plus many studies point out that the multiplier of such spending is actually smaller than that of tax cuts.

First off, I'm hardly a koolaid sipping liberal. I read the Drudge report over the Huffington Post, and follow David Brooks and NRO just as much as I do Krugman and Maddow.

On the matter of taxcuts, I'd encourage you to read the Romer-Bernstein report. It's put out by the Administration, so I understand your bias, but Romer is highly respected by people on both sides of the aisle. It's been met with praise by just about every economist left of the Heritage Foundation.

Edit: Also, Cattivo, come off it. The objectionable cultural portions of the stimulus bill formed a small minority of the spending, and the 'worst' of that was removed at your insistence. It has nothing to do with the bill passing without Republican support except to show that they were begging for changes to a bill that they wouldn't vote on even with the changes.

 

[emzie]

[I'm sorry, I refuse to let my tax money pay for other peoples' lifestyles.

So you're a tax evader?

 

[mrt144]

I'm sorry, I refuse to let my tax money pay for other peoples' lifestyles.

So when are you going to stop paying taxes period?

 

[bhsup]

Hey, I would have voted against this stupid bill too. They are funding STD awareness because "a healthy population is a productive population" and calling it job creation. What kind of BS is that? It's pork-barrel/leftist crap. Yes, I realize the jobs creation/stimulus package is going to be passed and if I were in the legislature I'd probably vote for one that, you know, actually created a snip of jobs, but some of the stuff CNN was dogging on this morning (yes CNN, not FOX) was ridiculous and deserved to be dogged on.