Obama and bipartisanship

[bascule]

In the light of the stimulus bill, what are your thoughts in regard to Obama and the Democratic Party's attempts at bipartisanship?

 

I've left this poll publicly viewable, but if you're too lazy to see what I voted and am curious what I think, I think Obama has given the Republicans a fair shake and they are simply being stubborn and hypocritical.

 

What do you think?

 

(Note: This poll pertains primarily to the stimulus as it's the most significant piece of legislation since Obama took office)

[iNow]

I'll be curious to hear what others think, but here's my current perspective.

 

 

In the House, Dems failed at bringing Repubs to the table properly. As I understand it, Pelosi basically said, "we won the election, we'll let you see it when we're done writing it." That soured the tone.

 

Things seemed to go better in the Senate. More participation, more cooperation.

 

I do think that Obama, before anything was even written, voiced support and mandated that some key repub ideas like tax cuts be a part of the package... so those went in and that made it more balanced at the start.

 

With all of that said, though, I think the Republicans are simply being stubborn and hypocritical. They are focussing on tiny little things here and there, using those as reasons not to vote for it (in fact, to outright oppose it), when the other 96% of the bill is really good stuff, AND the single largest tax cut ever.

 

My take is that it's a play getting ready for the next election cycle. If the plan helps, they will say, "See, those ammendments we offered really DID help." If it fails, they will say, "Well, we told you so. It's not our fault."

 

The real kicker here is how not passing a spending package and not doing so quickly would have REALLY screwed us all. I think a lot of people in the country are upset that we are so far in debt, and our deficit is so huge. That's a fair point, and one I completely agree with. However, the hypocrisy is when Republicans have the audacity to argue that they are simply "watching out for the bottom line." Yeah... just like they did before spending a trillion in Iraq, or giving $350B in tax cuts to the richest 1%, or the Farm bill and others...

 

Anyway, you'll never see a person arguing for the ideological position of a deficit hawk when they're standing in an unemployment line.

 

 

On top of that, the republican version of "bipartisanship" seems to be defined as democrats sacrificing their strength, releasing their votes, and rewriting bills to serve the desires of the minority republicans. That's not bipartisanship, that's stupid. While there are legitimate differences between the parties, the dems won so many seats during last Novembers election for a reason... because people were tired of the same old policies and same old partisan gridlock where nothing important got done.

 

 

I'm curious to hear what others think.

Edited February 16, 2009 by iNow

[ecoli]

well i agree that the repubs have been ineffective at compromising. I don't think that this a bad thing however. I'd like to see some more opposition in washington, in fact.

[D H]

In the House, Dems failed at bringing Repubs to the table properly.

That's putting it mildly.

 

As I understand it, Pelosi basically said, "we won the election, we'll let you see it when we're done writing it." That soured the tone.

That didn't just sour the tone. It spoiled the whole works.

 

With all of that said, though, I think the Republicans are simply being stubborn and hypocritical.

Try to look at things from their perspective. The Republicans think they lost the election because (a) the economic collapse right before the election was just a case of incredibly bad timing, and (b) they lost their way in the last eight years. They admit they deviated from their roots from 2000 to 2008: They stopped being Republicans. In their mind, the 2008 defeat was a clear message that they had to return to their conservative roots. With this mindset, voting for the stimulus plan would have been hypocritical. Particularly so with Polosi's souring of the works.

[iNow]

Well, just to be clear here, while I tend left, I am, by no means, a democrat. I don't associate with either party, really, because they're all such a bunch of ridiculous jackasses and morons so very often. Much as I agree with many of the stated principles of the democratic party, I do think that there are many good principles stated by the republican party, but also I don't think any of us have seen those classic republican principles in action for more than two decades now. They're all talk, and they are lying when they are speaking on top of that...

 

 

Either way, having their poor wittle feelings hurt by Pelosi and deciding to take their ball and go home doesn't exactly impress me, either. If you want your voice to be heard, you have to speak, and I think they were troublingly silent here, or worse... WAY off point/out of touch when they did open their mouths.

Edited February 16, 2009 by iNow

[npts2020]

Well IMO, the opposition of the Republicans was more for show than anything else. If it had anything to do with ideology, why were Republican governors nearly unanimous in lobbying congress for passage (or are they in a different Republican Party)? After the last election the national Republicans are grasping for any issue that might turn their fortunes around, since the usual ones seemed to have little effect. Whatever one wishes to believe about Republicans and their motives, it is a mistake to believe that they are stupid. More than one analyst believes that the current economic woes are going to be around for some time and if improvement can be obstructed for two years or four years, what are the potential political benefits? It is impossible for me to imagine this hasn't been considered by Republican leaders.

[jackson33]

In the light of the stimulus bill, what are your thoughts in regard to Obama and the Democratic Party's attempts at bipartisanship?

 

I've left this poll publicly viewable, but if you're too lazy to see what I voted and am curious what I think, I think Obama has given the Republicans a fair shake and they are simply being stubborn and hypocritical.

 

What do you think?

 

(Note: This poll pertains primarily to the stimulus as it's the most significant piece of legislation since Obama took office)

 

Obama, DID show signs of 'Political Bipartisanship', traveling to the House/Senate for meetings, inviting them to the WH and desirous of a majority of both parties in the final drafting/vote of the Stimulus Bill. The problem is he also asked Congress to write the bill and get it passed by Presidents Day. I also believe he has/had no understanding of the difference in Spending/Stimulus or potential results of either on the economy nor does he understand the consequences of talking down an economy. What he or more likely his advisor's KNEW, was anything written by the Administration could draft, would be fought over by every House Member or Senator of both parties, taking months to years to accomplish, then probably very little and to late knowing the economy will eventually correct itself.

 

bascule; Congress has passed THE MOST SIGNIFICANT piece of legislature, in the History of the UNION, IMO. Not only is it the most costly, none of which can be paid for in the normal manner, it contains the foundation for Social programs not yet imagined and possibly the control of Government over the economy and traditional business structure that made the US, the power it has been. Obama, when signing this, will make the Congress the keeper/provider/regulator for many up to now, State Issues and in return will make the Executive the sole power for international affairs. My opinion...

 

iNow; As far as I am concerned, you have crossed the line with an apparently total ignorance of how the Party Affiliation, political system works.

NO Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or any party, is 100% behind every principle of their affiliated platform. Frankly if you bother to read, just the Dem/Rep 2008 platforms you'll find much the same in each. To the thread title this is what the Republican does say, as does the Democrat...

 

Under 'Plan to control spending'...

"If billions are worth spending, they should be spent in the light of day. We will insist BEFORE the House or Senate CONSIDERS a spending bill, every item will be presented to the TAXPAYERS, on the Internet"

 

Those "poor wittle feelings" were not hurt, they were abiding to their platform. Aside from this, parties have BASIC differences. Living/Traditional acceptance of the Constitution, larger government vs smaller more efficient, individual/State rights over government, the basic capitalism economy or government management via regulation and a host of very different understanding of what should or should not be. Frankly sir, I don't think you relate to anything close to a Republican understanding on any issue and if you do not agree with the Democrat viewpoint, its because you left of those values.

[SH3RL0CK]

Well, just to be clear here, while I tend left, I am, by no means, a democrat. I don't associate with either party, really, because they're all such a bunch of ridiculous jackasses and morons so very often. Much as I agree with many of the stated principles of the democratic party, I do think that there are many good principles stated by the republican party, but also I don't think any of us have seen those classic republican principles in action for more than two decades now. They're all talk, and they are lying when they are speaking on top of that...

 

 

Either way, having their poor wittle feelings hurt by Pelosi and deciding to take their ball and go home doesn't exactly impress me, either. If you want your voice to be heard, you have to speak, and I think they were troublingly silent here, or worse... WAY off point/out of touch when they did open their mouths.

 

Well, the Republicans no longer have the ball to begin with. Then to be told by Pelosi that "you don't get to play ball with us" really left the Republicans almost no alternative. Very shortsighted, IMO, on Pelosi's part because if the stimulus bill doesn't work (it won't) and the economy doesn't improve in two years (which it might or might not), she's just given the Republican a campaigning tool. She's probably betting that the economy will be better in two years so only the Democrats can take credit; but even in this case I think the severe budget deficits and/or inflation this bill will cause will still give the Republicans a campaign tool because they were excluded.

 

Not that I really care, other than a maybe few minor social differences they are really the same party. Democrats and Republicans are like tossing a coin, no matter which side comes up, you still only have pocket change left.

[DrDNA]

I could vote if you had a category that states the actions and/or inactions of BOTH the reps and the dems have been shameful re: this matter.

[iNow]

Frankly sir, I don't think you relate to anything close to a Republican understanding on any issue and if you do not agree with the Democrat viewpoint, its because you left of those values.

I find it rather funny that you are attacking me by suggesting that I'm politically on the left. That's rather telling, really, especially since I opened my post above saying exactly that. Further, any member here who has read my posts knows that I am open to a quality argument, and that I am hardly here on some ideological bent. However, since you did choose to attack me, I will briefly respond.

 

 

iNow; As far as I am concerned, you have crossed the line with an apparently total ignorance of how the Party Affiliation, political system works.

Well, to be honest, Jackson... having read hundreds of your posts on this site and at others, and seeing how consistently incoherent your thoughts are, how you struggle to form simple sentences at a 7th grade level, and how when you ARE posting it is predominantly to simply regurgitate something you heard on Faux News, I'm not exactly going to be crying myself to sleep tonight wiping away tears in my pillow all because you think I am "totally ignorant of how the political system works."

 

Please... learn to form a basic sentence with proper grammar and to offer a coherent thought once in a while and maybe we can talk.

 

 

The republicans are still trying to dictate terms based on their old ideas. Not only have they lost their ability to dictate terms (and yet don't seem to realize this since they're acting the same way they have for nearly a decade), but it's precisely those old ideas that people voted against. It's cartoonish how far away from reality so many of them are.

 

When the Bush stimulus plan came up last year, and it was all tax cuts, many democrats opposed it strongly, but large numbers of them still voted for it because they knew it would help, and also knew that they didn't have the votes to do something better. So, they did what was right as opposed to doing nothing since the plan was not what they'd desired.

 

Yet, this year, out of 219 Republicans in congress, only 3 voted for this, zero of them in the House. It is obvious to even the most ignorant observer that every congress person (republican, democrat, independent, or other) had parts of the bill they didn't like, yet it was only the republicans who refused to step up and instead use this legislation as another political wedge instead of a way to help citizens who are struggling... They chose to play silly political games in preparation for the next election cycle instead of putting aside their "black and white" and narrow-minded view of how the world works and doing something good for the populace. The democrats are certainly not without fault, but this was a time to come together, and the republicans really blew it.

 

 

Anyway, Jackson... you're free to share your opinion, but it would certainly look better to people here reading it if you could at least write using sentences beyond a 7th grade level and learn where commas go. Further, if I may offer you a nickels worth of free advise, it would be better if you expressed your opinion on the topic under discussion instead of lobbing personal invectives at other posters such as me. Enjoy.

Edited February 16, 2009 by iNow

[DrDNA]

iNow,

I think he (albeit harshly) attacked your political opinion and political preference; not your 'overall' intelligence.

 

What does one's level of education, writing ability or lack thereof have to do with their political opinion?

[iNow]

You can PM me if you wish to discuss. That's not the subject of this thread. I responded, further reinforcing how my comments tied to the discussion, and I suggest that we can all move back on topic now if you don't mind.

[jackson33]

I find it rather funny that you are attacking me by suggesting that I'm politically on the left. That's rather telling, really, especially since I opened my post above saying exactly that. However, since you did choose to attack me, I will briefly respond.

 

The republicans are still trying to dictate terms based on their old ideas. Not only have they lost their ability to dictate terms (and yet don't seem to realize this since they're acting the same way they have for nearly a decade), but it's precisely those old ideas that people voted against. It's cartoonish how far away from reality so many of them are.

 

When the Bush stimulus plan came up last year, and it was all tax cuts, many democrats opposed it strongly, but large numbers of them still voted for it because they knew it would help, and also knew that they didn't have the votes to do something better. So, they did what was right as opposed to what they desired.

 

Yet, this year, out of 219 Republicans in congress, only 3 voted for this, zero of them in the House. It is obvious to even the most ignorant observer that every congress person (republican, democrat, independent, or other) had parts of the bill they didn't like, yet it was only the republicans who refused to step up and instead use this legislation as another political wedge instead of a way to help citizens who are struggling... They chose to play silly political games in preparation for the next election cycle instead of putting aside their "black and white" and narrow-minded view of how the world works and doing something good for the populace. The democrats are certainly not without fault, but this was a time to come together, and the republicans really blew it.

 

It's not possible to go over 1100 plus pages of programs designed to increase Federal influence/regulation and control. There is no way to explain any program that is not explained, that has no limitation, defined goals or in fact ending. What is apparent is States are going to be bailed out of current financial problems brought on in part by very poor management and a Federal Government that will be imposing hundreds of mandates for this assistance. I won't even bother to explain my opinions on dysfunctional city governments that have been failing for years...

 

I opposed, the 2008 Financial Bailout designed by Paulson and am unaware of any 2008 Bush Stimulus Bill. As that bailout has failed, so will the current and frankly the next one designed to pay off failing mortgages. It's become a joke and just who has been in charge of Congress since 2006??? Propping up false bottoms is just not possible...

 

I did/do support LOANING cash to the Big Three old US Auto Companies, after opposing the Chrysler loan years ago. These three still produce 10 million auto/trucks plus per year and employ or support millions of workers/retirees, support thousand of secondary business related or not to the auto, and pay billions in local taxes. That 32 Billion loan (or whatever) dwarfs anything the ENTIRE Stimulus bill will or could possibly produce...IMO.

 

I have already explained the grounds Republicans could not VOTE FOR a BILL, they had not read or been involved in its conception. As for the so called 'Tax Cuts' in the bill and ones republicans normally could support, they are credits for obedience (buy something) or outright welfare.

 

Couple decades of Republican practice indicates you supported Reagan and his policy, which I DO NOT BELIEVE. Conservatives (Reaganites) are right of Republicans, whether fiscal/social or religious in nature. The few of us that have continued to vote Republican, have had no other practical place to go...

 

The Republican have blown nothing. Although I disagree in their reasoning (failure will lay on the Democrats), it is the Nation that will eventually suffer. If the Obama Administration ideas do work, even if self proclaimed or not actual, or fail in total...the country will be the loser.

[DrDNA]

I did/do support LOANING cash to the Big Three old US Auto Companies, after opposing the Chrysler loan years ago. These three still produce 10 million auto/trucks plus per year and employ or support millions of workers/retirees, support thousand of secondary business related or not to the auto, and pay billions in local taxes

 

I can't recall off the top of my the had exact number or the ratio of cars and trucks built/assembled by the BIG 3 in Canada, Mexico or elsewhere vs US.

But I can tell that it is significant.

 

Furthermore, I can't tell you off the top of my head how much of a car 'assembled' in the US is made with foreign parts.

But I also know that this number is also significant.

 

However, I DO know that 'my' Ford F-150 was made in Mexico.

Other Ford F-150s are made in Brazil, Canada, Venezuela or the US

 

I also know that many of vehicles produced by the BIG 3 are obsolete.

 

So, can you please explain to me why we are bailing out the Mexican, Brazilian, Canadian, and Venezuelan auto industries who happen to be making obsolete vehicles???

[bascule]

I opposed, the 2008 Financial Bailout designed by Paulson and am unaware of any 2008 Bush Stimulus Bill.

 

Are you unfamiliar with metonymy? When I say "The White House supports the stimulus bill", I don't literally mean the building supports the stimulus bill, but rather the people inside it, namely the President and his cabinet.

 

Similarly, I don't see a problem with calling the 2008 Bush Bailout Bill the 2008 Bush Bailout Bill because it was authored by a member of Bush's cabinet and vocally supported by Bush.

 

If the Obama Administration ideas do work, even if self proclaimed or not actual, or fail in total...the country will be the loser.

 

Zuh? If Obama's ideas work the country will already be the loser?

 

I hate to break it to you but the country is already a loser, and it's not Obama's fault, it's Bush's.

 

Welcome to the Bush recession. We're just in damage control mode at this point.

Edited February 16, 2009 by bascule

[jackson33]

I can't recall off the top of my the had exact number or the ratio of cars and trucks built/assembled by the BIG 3 in Canada, Mexico or elsewhere vs US.

But I can tell that it is significant.

 

Furthermore, I can't tell you off the top of my head how much of a car 'assembled' in the US is made with foreign parts.

But I also know that this number is also significant.

 

However, I DO know that 'my' Ford F-150 was made in Mexico.

Other Ford F-150s are made in Brazil, Canada, Venezuela or the US

 

I also know that many of vehicles produced by the BIG 3 are obsolete.

 

So, can you please explain to me why we are bailing out the Mexican, Brazilian, Canadian, and Venezuelan auto industries who happen to be making obsolete vehicles???

 

GM alone has over 70 facilities in the US, at least one in 34 States and 22 still active in Michigan. Many if not the majority are in small towns or at least one of the top two employers/local tax payer. Engine/Transmission plants to full Assembly operations. Each is supplied by a variety of other business directly related to auto/truck or is near the sole source for thousand of independent small business. It my belief and others, that CAFE Standards enacted in 1975 directed at MPG and redirected over time to include emission standards, crippled the aging US Auto Makers. The end results were foreign makers, increasing sales shipped into the US and eventually building nice new modern plant in the US (I do NOT oppose competition).

 

Since Congress by regulation had helped to create the problem, it's is my belief they should assist in a possible solution. As for GM or Ford (Chrysler a lost cause and private industry in the first place) all foreign operations have been AIDING, these two since the late 90's, as US operation here tried retooling and keeping up with regulations and literally losing money each year.

Additionally those foreign operations can easily be sold (GM did so in Germany a couple years ago). Further add, the Financial Breakdown and whatever you want to blame that on, or the dropping values of their equities which had been the source for funding.

 

Your Ford 150 and the others are being built in NEW plants, that cost nothing to permit, no unions to support and probably from parts made in several other countries around the world. By the way, think is the number one selling model today...

 

bascule; If your talking about the Tax Rebate Program, paid in 2008 by Bush, I didn't agree with that either.

 

I can't argue the country hasn't already been hurt, but would argue the degree of pain could have been less and will be more, so long as politicians continue to try and run business. I understand you feel Government should take responsibility for many things 'cradle to grave' of human activity, but that idea has been tested to many time to try over. Chavez in Venezuela, today is heralding the notion, his people have just voted in Socialism for their country. I hate the idea, having followed Cuba's rise in Living Standards over the past 50 years, and hope my kids and theirs have the same future, I have so enjoyed in the past...

[iNow]

I think government should take responsibility for itself, for a change. Does anyone have a lighter so we can burn down all of these strawmen?

[bascule]

bascule; If your talking about the Tax Rebate Program, paid in 2008 by Bush, I didn't agree with that either.

 

No, I'm talking about the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"

 

I think it's really disingenuous to say this legislation isn't a product of Bush because Paulson wrote it when Paulson was Bush's treasury secretary and the legislation was vocally supported by Bush.

[jackson33]

No, I'm talking about the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008"

 

I think it's really disingenuous to say this legislation isn't a product of Bush because Paulson wrote it when Paulson was Bush's treasury secretary and the legislation was vocally supported by Bush.

 

OK, I understand...Since I had already mentioned opposing that action, including GWB approval and never considered it anything close to a stimulus, please forgive my misunderstanding...I'll go a bit further and suggest 75% of the current economic problems of today started with that cry for 'time to panic'. What I don't know and worry about is, what/how/why Paulson thought would happen, if not exactly what did happen. He was a major player in a major financial institution, knowing standing outside their front door crying 'were going to fail' would have the same reaction. Made no sense...

[iNow]

What does any of this have to do with bipartisan efforts (or lack thereof) surrounding the passage of the ARRA?

[Pangloss]

Sorry guys, I'm a little slammed with work at the moment, and I'm just going to have to kinda punt here and say I really liked iNow's post #2 above (but haven't really read the rest of the thread). The Dems did sour things a bit but the Republicans are definitely playing hardball politics. They did raise some reasonable objections with the stimulus packages and most of those final changes were good ones, IMO. But they're way out on a limb claiming they were left out of the process.

 

But in the end it doesn't matter a whole lot -- Republicans weren't going to come on board with it no matter how hypocritical or uncooperative this makes them seem. The reason is simple: They saw what happened to Dems who voted for Iraq, and they don't want the same thing to happen to them if the economy completely tanks.

 

And so with this stimulus package Obama and the Dems now own the economy. Win or lose, it's all theirs. They'll get the laurels or they'll get the boot. The whole 2010 and 2012 election cycle was scripted last week.

 

There will be cooperation on many if not most other action items on the agenda. This was the one Republicans were always going to put their feet down over. It just happened to come up first. Probably a good thing -- it's out of the way now.

[bascule]

Just for the record: Schwarzenegger says Republicans should "put aside ideology" and reach out more to Democrats:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/02/schwarzenegger.html

[iNow]

Yesterday, on THIS WEEK, he was very proud to proclaim that "sometimes you have to do what is best for the people instead of what is best for your party." He said that if those other repub governors didn't want to the money (like LA gov Jindal) that he'd gladly take it, because people in his state are suffering and he wants to help them.

 

Another governor who has stepped up and earned more of my respect for similar reasons is FL governor Crist. He's a republican who has made similar comments as the governator. That it's important to do what's right for the people as your priority, instead of just falling lock-step with the party.

 

Good for them. A great big RIGHT ON! ... something I don't feel I get the opportunity to say often enough with the republicans in DC.

[Mr Skeptic]

The republicans are still trying to dictate terms based on their old ideas. Not only have they lost their ability to dictate terms (and yet don't seem to realize this since they're acting the same way they have for nearly a decade), but it's precisely those old ideas that people voted against. It's cartoonish how far away from reality so many of them are.

 

When the Bush stimulus plan came up last year, and it was all tax cuts, many democrats opposed it strongly, but large numbers of them still voted for it because they knew it would help, and also knew that they didn't have the votes to do something better. So, they did what was right as opposed to doing nothing since the plan was not what they'd desired.

 

Yet, this year, out of 219 Republicans in congress, only 3 voted for this, zero of them in the House. It is obvious to even the most ignorant observer that every congress person (republican, democrat, independent, or other) had parts of the bill they didn't like, yet it was only the republicans who refused to step up and instead use this legislation as another political wedge instead of a way to help citizens who are struggling... They chose to play silly political games in preparation for the next election cycle instead of putting aside their "black and white" and narrow-minded view of how the world works and doing something good for the populace. The democrats are certainly not without fault, but this was a time to come together, and the republicans really blew it.

 

The answer to this seems so obvious to me. Erase all the concessions to the Republicans from the bill, since they can pass it without them. Let the Republicans think on that for a while, and maybe the Democrats can earn some of their support by putting the concessions back in the bill. If not, at least it will balance the Republican bailout that was already what Republicans wanted.

[Pangloss]

Another governor who has stepped up and earned more of my respect for similar reasons is FL governor Crist. He's a republican who has made similar comments as the governator. That it's important to do what's right for the people as your priority, instead of just falling lock-step with the party.

 

Good for them. A great big RIGHT ON! ... something I don't feel I get the opportunity to say often enough with the republicans in DC.

 

It's even more interesting when you consider how powerful the Republican party is in state politics. Our national representation (which has a lot of representation from Democrats) somewhat belies the state picture, which is rather solidly Republican. They've been in control of the state legislatures (which of course the governor has to deal with) for many years now.

 

But the budget situation has really knocked things out of whack. Republicans in legislature were everyone's darlings for the last four or five year when we were running surpluses, but now of course it's a different story. We're something like $5 billion in the red, and we're near the top of the list in foreclosures, have skyrocketing unemployment, and the whole tourist industry is in trouble.

 

I don't like the fact that the states are getting bailed out by the federal government with printed money that isn't backed by income (who does?). But if that's what's going to be done then it needs to get done and I don't appreciate the party casting aspersions on Crist when it's not his fault we're in a recession. I'd trade the lot of 'em for another Charlie Crist in a heartbeat.

 

I don't mean to dwell on Florida politics, btw, I just think it's an interesting example of some politicking that is probably taking place along similar lines in a lot of states right now.