Onesided bipartisanship

[Simple Simon]

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.

What do you expect?

Why should they develop brains, act reasonably, and find a moral stance just because a black guy is prez? They are, for the sake of the guy someone nailed to a tree, Republicans! Neo-Cons!

I, for one, judge them by their behavior during the election, when they flung mud and lied through their teeth - nearly all of them. So why should anything have changed now?

 

[El_Machinae]

And less people to pay into your social security. Social security depends on population growth for its funding.

It can also depend on increasing wealth and income. At the individual-actor and at the global-actor levels, reduced population growth is actually the winning ticket. If a system can't handle reduced population growth, the system should be changed.

 

[BSmith1068]

It can also depend on increasing wealth and income. At the individual-actor and at the global-actor levels, reduced population growth is actually the winning ticket. If a system can't handle reduced population growth, the system should be changed.

It could also be saved by not using it as a general slush fund for other things. That is probably the easiest and best way to "save" Social Security. Leave it alone and stop raiding it!

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I tend to think that the best stimulus would probably be to abolish all payroll taxes, having medicare/medicaid/social security be payed for out of the main budget like everything else instead of separating it to make the debt look smaller. The logistics of payroll tax rebates seems too costly, and a sudden and lasting raise to all wage earners seems much more effective.

 

[Bill3000]

What I'm perplexed about is why the House Republicans voted against the bill to delay the transition to digital TV. Their major constituencies (rural people) are the ones who would be helped the most by it, for god's sake. There's nothing particularly ideological about it. Is it just being petty?

 

[Cutlass]

What I'm perplexed about is why the House Republicans voted against the bill to delay the transition to digital TV. Their major constituencies (rural people) are the ones who would be helped the most by it, for god's sake. There's nothing particularly ideological about it. Is it just being petty?

Think of who the beneficiaries of digital tv are: All those communications companies that are just drooling in anticipation of getting their hands on the bandwidth.

 

[downtown]

What I'm perplexed about is why the House Republicans voted against the bill to delay the transition to digital TV. Their major constituencies (rural people) are the ones who would be helped the most by it, for god's sake. There's nothing particularly ideological about it. Is it just being petty?

The Senate Republicans voted for it too. What are we missing?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Voting down the bill delaying the DTV transition does seem rather odd. I'd guess the bill probably had some earmarks for things they opposed, as otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Of course, you could also argue that the increased demand of having to get a new TV/converter box sooner could lead to more shopping and help the economy.

 

[Bill3000]

Think of who the beneficiaries of digital tv are: All those communications companies that are just drooling in anticipation of getting their hands on the bandwidth.

Then it makes even less sense.

Voting down the bill delaying the DTV transition does seem rather odd. I'd guess the bill probably had some earmarks for things they opposed, as otherwise it doesn't make much sense. Of course, you could also argue that the increased demand of having to get a new TV/converter box sooner could lead to more shopping and help the economy.

There's like, 6 million people who still do not have a converter, and they are essentially all in the rural areas. As for the earmarks, we're talking about the House here; everyone does earmarks.

 

[Irish Caesar]

What I'm perplexed about is why the House Republicans voted against the bill to delay the transition to digital TV. Their major constituencies (rural people) are the ones who would be helped the most by it, for god's sake. There's nothing particularly ideological about it. Is it just being petty?

Was that bill separate from the big one?

 

[Miles Teg]

Yes, yes it was. They aren't really buying points by opposing this, or the Ledbetter act. Neither of those stands are going to help them much.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Ah, didn't realize.

Well then that's stupid.

 

[Sporkbomb]

If we're having so much trouble coming up with money in this country, why don't we drop our culture slider by 30%, build some cottages and windmills, then disband some units, that ought to get back into the green! But seriously, Governments spend money. Left governments spend it inside the country, right governments spend it outside. We can't resort to past economic solutions because the GLOBAL market is crashing, not just the US one, and considering the overall power of multi-national corporations, we have never encountered anything like it. The important thing is to not let our politicians make economic decisions based on emotion. And it is even more important to not get angry when we debate with each other, because we are all in the same boat/country.

But even more seriously, we need to build some cottages...

 

[Irish Caesar]

Can't disband units; civil disorder in Baghdad would make things worse!

 

[VoodooAce]

The GOP had really better hope as Rush does....that Obama fails to right the economy. Sure, that would probably mean disaster for millions of people (Rush and his GOP minions will probably be able to eke out a living, regardless so what do they care?) but what else do they have?

If things begin to improve by, say, next summer, the GOP is in even deeper crap than they are now. Their house vote this week, all together now in goose, er, lock-step might seem like a good idea now (its not) but if they think the dems won't use that vote next year, they're far nuttier than I thought....which is saying something.

Trying to make the argument that the economy improved despite, not because of, this stimulus bill (and further actions taken by the administration) will seem like sour grapes.

Anyone with foresight can see that it will appear just as it will be....Obama and the democrats brought us out of the wholey unholy mess that eight years of republican leadership wrought. IMHO this kind of thing will play very well in 30 second adds that will play all across the country next fall.

All a liberal like me can ask for is more of the same....more Rush and more Sarah would be good, too.

 

[Irish Caesar]

IMHO this kind of thing will play very well in 30 second adds that will play all across the country next fall.

Of course.

That's been the biggest failing of the Republicans in power lately: failure to communicate. They haven't run good campaigns, and they can't raise the money to do so. They don't have a spokesman to rally around, and Sen. McCain doesn't seem to be stepping it up.

Their mistake isn't in voting against this thing (they'd get wicked primary challenges for voting for it), the mistake is in not having an effective mouthpiece to justify it. They're letting themselves become a minority party, and nothing they've done has shown me an interest in changing that anytime soon. Not a good plan.

 

[VoodooAce]

Mouthpiece? Rush is a mouth piece. Haha.

Seriously, what about Rudy?:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/giuliani.corporate.bonuses/index.html

Would be nice if other GOP'ers would publicly admit to adhering to this belief, too. Shout if from the rooftops, Rudy!

 

[Cutlass]

Then it makes even less sense.


There's like, 6 million people who still do not have a converter, and they are essentially all in the rural areas. As for the earmarks, we're talking about the House here; everyone does earmarks.

Not at all. Think it through. Huge companies want digital tv so that they can use the bandwidth that analog tv uses for other purposes.

Against that is a few million rural poor.

We're talking about the Republican party here.

 

[mrt144]

Not at all. Think it through. Huge companies want digital tv so that they can use the bandwidth that analog tv uses for other purposes.

Against that is a few million rural poor.

We're talking about the Republican party here.

Maybe the rural poor would be better off without TV.

 

[GoodGame]

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.

That'd just be playing into the partisanship. Better to enjoy one's majority when there is no internal dispute, then to to be undiplomatic and gloat.