WSJ: McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama

[ccsl2]

Just because the Republicans' motives may not be 100% pure, doesn't mean there aren't valid arguments against the stimulus.

To me, it's a copout to say that republicans want the stimulus to fail or that the economy failed because of republican ideas. There may be elements of truth to both those points, but they alone don't make the opposition to the bill unwarranted or obstructionist.

If the stimulus is a good idea, there should be better arguments for it than just discrediting the opposition.

What is a better argument than creating jobs? Or tax cuts? Or infrastructure building? Overall health of the economy?

If u hear the Repuiblicans tell it, the "so called" wasteful spending in the bill is enough to vote against it even thought people are losing their jobs everyday. No alternate solutions. Nothing. Then they say "well we didn't have time to read the bill". Really? They sure enough had time to cherry pick what they didn't like about the bill, instead of what was in the bill that stimulates the economy.

[SkinsHokieFan]

If u hear the Repuiblicans tell it, the "so called" wasteful spending in the bill is enough to vote against it even thought people are losing their jobs everyday. No alternate solutions. Nothing. Then they say "well we didn't have time to read the bill". Really? They sure enough had time to cherry pick what they didn't like about the bill, instead of what was in the bill that stimulates the economy.

Actually there were quite a few alternate proposals presented, including McCain with a 400 some odd billion dollar one

Other ideas were the payroll tax holiday and dropping the corporate tax rate

But the Dems won the election, election have consequences and they can do as they please until they are voted out (if that ever happens)

[ccsl2]

Actually there were quite a few alternate proposals presented, including McCain with a 400 some odd billion dollar one

Other ideas were the payroll tax holiday and dropping the corporate tax rate

But the Dems won the election, election have consequences and they can do as they please until they are voted out (if that ever happens)

Right I remember McCain's proposal.

[D'KanSkinFan]

I disagree with the article's premice. From nearly every account I have read, Obama made great strides to bring the Republicans into the conversation and have them play a role. The Republicans by and large chose not to or chose such strict uncomprising positions as to prevent an honest debate of ideas. In that sense this bill was very bipartisan. The horse was led to water, but chose not to drink. Obama invited them, beseeched them, and worked with them to get on board (esp. on the Senate side) and they chose not to debate, engage, or work on the bill. They took a hardline position that was then voted on and being the minority they lost.

I saw and heard of many efforts to create bipartisanship. If it didn't happen it's because the Republicans didn't want it to happen.

(Now, if we are only talking about the initial House version than I agree that Obama probably naively thought they would behave like adults and Pelosi did not, but for the Senate and final bills there was certainly an effort made and not an insubstantial effort made, especially considering that their votes were not needed.

Well Burgold~ you were at the meetings? You sound so sure of the bipartisan conversations; congrats, didn't know you were there:cheers:

A story once once told to me~ and I will share it; it doesn't make a difference how good "The man at the top is - "Grandpa" "~ if you have to go back to the evil step mother and father to get things accomplished, you get locked away with out any supper. No matter how kind or nice you are~ the snears and jears place you in the dungeon

Want to make an educated guess who the evil step mom and dad are?

I can tell you~ the Republicans that represent my area; they're great in my books. They voted the way I requested they do.

There could have been immediate tax cuts for taxpayers (suggested by the Republicans) such as a tax holiday, decreasing or eliminating small business gains tax, on and on:

Here is one of the answers they received:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20090124/NEWS01/901240348/-1/yourprez

House and Senate GOP leaders "had some constructive suggestions, which we'll review," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters after the meeting with Obama and House and Senate leaders from both parties in the Roosevelt Room.

And you can read more:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20090124/NEWS01/901240348/-1/yourprez

Or big a big person:silly: and contact the Republican Congressmen~ they'll tell you what they wanted in the big for IMMEDIATE impact for the taxpayers that would stimulate the economy. I encourage you to contact them.

So~ you see its not just that a hand was extended, the wicked step mom and dad ignored them~ the "Grandpa" got angry with them.........so, they didn't support a bill that wouldn't have IMMEDIATE impact on the economy so they voted against it.

Would you vote for something you didn't believe in? No~ you wouldn't; especially when you saw the bill was inflated (Not one Congressmen said some anything about being against any of the project "in time"; just that a stimulus for everyone was needed NOW for the economy). THEN, it was rushed through without any electronic copy and printed in the dark of night and voted upon before anyone could read it~ "BECAUSE" it had to be passed and Ready for Monday~ 2/16/2009 for the Prez to sign it.

And, now, WHEN did the Prez sign it? Thats right~ Sounds fishy to me;)

[GoSkins561]

What is a better argument than creating jobs? Or tax cuts? Or infrastructure building? Overall health of the economy?

If u hear the Repuiblicans tell it, the "so called" wasteful spending in the bill is enough to vote against it even thought people are losing their jobs everyday. No alternate solutions. Nothing. Then they say "well we didn't have time to read the bill". Really? They sure enough had time to cherry pick what they didn't like about the bill, instead of what was in the bill that stimulates the economy.

Every single section of the bill should have been open for debate. It would have been impossible to review 1,800 pages in the time frame the Democrats allowed.

[mjah]

It's hardly a surprise that the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page takes issue with a Democratic president's claims of bipartisanship.

They aren't exactly known for being anywhere near the center, and neither is the author of this column who was, among other things, Bush's speechwriter.

[SparkleMotion]

What is a better argument than creating jobs? Or tax cuts? Or infrastructure building? Overall health of the economy?

If u hear the Repuiblicans tell it, the "so called" wasteful spending in the bill is enough to vote against it even thought people are losing their jobs everyday. No alternate solutions. Nothing. Then they say "well we didn't have time to read the bill". Really? They sure enough had time to cherry pick what they didn't like about the bill, instead of what was in the bill that stimulates the economy.

Those are all things everybody is in favor of. The criticisms were that alot of what's in the bill won't do what it is supposed to do.

To me, pointing out wasteful spending and saying this isn't stimulus is a much better stance than taking a "spray and pray" approach with money we don't have and hoping it works because we have to do something.

Only time will tell.

[ccsl2]

Every single section of the bill should have been open for debate. It would have been impossible to review 1,800 pages in the time frame the Democrats allowed.

The bill would have NEVER had gotten passed if that was done.

[88Comrade2000]

If the bill was so urgent, Obama should've signed it on late Friday or early Saturday; instead of a photo op today.

Obama WON and he should just forget about the Republicans. If his policies work, the Dems will be power for a long time. If they fail, then we are heading towards a revolution. The Republican party is dead. They have no credibility because they didn't oppose all the increase that Bush did.

[D'KanSkinFan]

If the bill was so urgent, Obama should've signed it on late Friday or early Saturday; instead of a photo op today.

Obama WON and he should just forget about the Republicans. If his policies work, the Dems will be power for a long time. If they fail, then we are heading towards a revolution. The Republican party is dead. They have no credibility because they didn't oppose all the increase that Bush did.

Your B/I/U statment above is so incorrect. I am sorry you feel that way.

As far as the Bush statement; look on the record, some Republicans voted against his increases AS some Democrats voted for them. Bipartsian ; however, don't misunderstand, there were some of the bills that I didn't agree with either that Bush signed, one being the October 2008 stimulus to banks~ but that bill wasn't wrote by Bush~ it was written by pelosi and supported by reid.

If the bill was so urgent, Obama should've signed it on late Friday or early Saturday; instead of a photo op today. = the economy isn't that critical and at the forefront of my mind; my photo op was.

[GoSkins561]

The bill would have NEVER had gotten passed if that was done.

So what does that tell you?

It tells me Obama pushed this bill through as fast as he possibly could, because if we did'nt our country was going to collapse and 500, 000 , 000 jobs would be lost.

[ccsl2]

So what does that tell you?

It tells me Obama pushed this bill through as fast as he possibly could, because if we did'nt our country was going to collapse and 500, 000 , 000 jobs would be lost.

Or maybe he had the framework set up long before he Inauguration Day, communicated it to his House and Senate leaders, and said lets get it going. :2cents:

[#98QBKiller]

Exactly. It would be nice, but he doesn't have to.

The GOP Governors side with Obama over the GOP on the Hill. Not surprising being as though these Governors are the ones who are doing the budget cutting, and know what they need to keep people in their jobs.

Winner, winner chicken dinner.

[ccsl2]

Winner, winner chicken dinner.

I think that is the reason Obama is out talking to the people about what he is trying to do to help, rather than let what was going on on the Hill distract the peopel from the issue at hand: Their jobs.

[ljs]

If the bill was so urgent' date=' Obama should've signed it on late Friday or early Saturday; instead of a photo op today. = the economy isn't that critical and at the forefront of my mind; my photo op was.[/quote']

exactly. Here we are told it needs to get passed asap...we have one senator returning after his mothers funeral on Friday to sign the bill...all while Obama flies back to Chicago to play basketball...

[ccsl2]

exactly. Here we are told it needs to get passed asap...we have one senator returning after his mothers funeral on Friday to sign the bill...all while Obama flies back to Chicago to play basketball...

Well I guess that proves the economy is not bad:doh:. Based on when he signed the bill. Like he didn't say from the beginning he wanted the bill on his desk by President's Day to sign.

You gotta come a little better than that.

[D'KanSkinFan]

exactly. Here we are told it needs to get passed asap...we have one senator returning after his mothers funeral on Friday to sign the bill...all while Obama flies back to Chicago to play basketball...

Well, priorities SET by him; its easier to take shots then to take care of "the peoples needs".

Your honor~ I rest my case; and this is NOT a case that I looked forward to winning. Because you see~ his paycheck goes on.................

[ChocolateCitySkin]

If the bill was so urgent, Obama should've signed it on late Friday or early Saturday; instead of a photo op today.

Obama WON and he should just forget about the Republicans. If his policies work, the Dems will be power for a long time. If they fail, then we are heading towards a revolution. The Republican party is dead. They have no credibility because they didn't oppose all the increase that Bush did.

I have a feeling what we're looking at is the republican party going away for a good 30-40 years...

[D'KanSkinFan]

I have a feeling what we're looking at is the republican party going away for a good 30-40 years...

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::peace1: Right

[Burgold]

Well Burgold~ you were at the meetings? You sound so sure of the bipartisan conversations; congrats' date=' didn't know you were there:cheers:[/quote']

What a snarky reply... especially since immediately after you go on and tell me exactly how it played out with Pelosi as evil step-mother. Tsk tsk.

You oughtn't say... you weren't there so you don't know and then immediately tell me how it went when you were far, far away from the action.

Very bad table manners, sir.

[twa]

It's hardly a surprise that the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page takes issue with a Democratic president's claims of bipartisanship.

They aren't exactly known for being anywhere near the center, and neither is the author of this column who was, among other things, Bush's speechwriter.

What about the Bluedog Dems?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A57B975B-B3E7-4C93-8E1E-DD5DDBEFF8B1

The Hill reports the Blue Dogs were in full uproar, until Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag wrote a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (a far-leftist), arguing this bill constituted an "extraordinary response to an extraordinary process" and the administration would "return to the fiscal responsibility and pay-as-you-go budgeting" as soon as this passed. Honest. It convinced some. Charlie Melancon of Louisiana deemed the letter a "direct signal that President Obama is willing to make the tough decisions necessary to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility.”

Had they voted as a body against it, the Coalition could have killed the bill, but they instead voted for the bill after a vague promise for future discipline. This is rather like allowing oneself a five-gallon tub of ice cream on the grounds that one will resume diet and exercise later.

...

As Senate Democrats amend the bill to make it more likely to attract bipartisan support, and as Republicans rebuff Harry Reid's wooing, Blue Dogs have rendered a valuable service. Their objections coupled with those of Republicans, undoubtedly helped strip the most onerous elements (e.g., contraception, an entirely different kind of stimulation) out of the stimulus bill. They also set down an important political marker. At a time when only 42 percent of the American people support the stimulus bill and most have major reservations, 100 percent of Republicans thus far have shown they oppose the bill. On the other hand, only 20 percent of the country's most conservative Democrats can be counted on to oppose a pork-laden, make-work bill, which will not have an appreciable effect on the economy for at least 16 months, even when it violates their most cherished principles. This is not what Republican-leaning districts elected Blue Dog Democrats to do, but it may signal a way out of the political wilderness for the GOP.

[D'KanSkinFan]

What a snarky reply... especially since immediately after you go on and tell me exactly how it played out with Pelosi as evil step-mother. Tsk tsk.

You oughtn't say... you weren't there so you don't know and then immediately tell me how it went when you were far, far away from the action.

Very bad table manners, sir.

'Mam to you sir

The reason I was able to tell you how it played out is I watched it on TV with the news, read it in the news, heard it over the radio (not Rush) and read it here on the forum on how rude the evil step mother was.

You sir "speculated" on how the Republicans acted with your post

Do you mean do insinuate this forum isn't a reliable source? Tsk, tsk, I have heard this forum quoted on Comcast:D and "other" networks :applause:

My bad for havin' such bad manners

[Hubbs]

If u hear the Repuiblicans tell it, the "so called" wasteful spending in the bill is enough to vote against it even thought people are losing their jobs everyday. No alternate solutions. Nothing. Then they say "well we didn't have time to read the bill". Really? They sure enough had time to cherry pick what they didn't like about the bill, instead of what was in the bill that stimulates the economy.

To be fair, it's purely factual that it takes far, far less time to stumble upon a few details you don't like than it does to read over 1,000 pages of a bill.

[Burgold]

It's cool. I actually enjoy chatting with you. You are a bit extreme, but mostly reasonable. I try to be fair about most things, including acknowledging my bias

Ah, but most of my sources are actually first hand. Staffers who are friends as well as my fellow members of the media and a few mediots who see things that are in front of the tables and some of the stuff that is said and done when the cameras are turned off.

After all, the backroom stuff is where it's at and the staffers are the ones who do most of the actual work.

I won't name names of course (don't want anyone fired or restricted), but I feel pretty secure in the tales I've heard. There were several bad actors in this drama. Not all of them were Repubs btw.

[Hubbs]

exactly. Here we are told it needs to get passed asap...we have one senator returning after his mothers funeral on Friday to sign the bill...all while Obama flies back to Chicago to play basketball...

Basketball? Come on, you can't expect anyone but rabid anti-Obama folks to listen to you when you say something like that. One of the things I've actually liked most about this whole stimulus boondoggle (a word which should tell you that I don't like the stimulus itself) is that Obama spent several days going all over the place and answering questions from real town halls, not the hand-picked farces of the Bush years.

Devoting half of a week to at least have some dialogue with ordinary Americans isn't a waste of time.