Bipartisanship?

[BanginJimmy]

I think not. The political games havent missed a step in Washington and both sides are playing. Not a single House Republican voted for the spending bill that is being masquaraded as a stimulous package. They also managed to pick up 11 House Democrats. The bill still passed, but it seems that Senate Republicans have the same issues with being completely shut out of the writing process.

As a result of this many members of both houses and both sides of the aisle have run to the press and started throwing around accusations.

Based on all the pork that is in these bills I hope that it doesnt get a single republican vote. The best estimates I have seen put more than 500B of this bill is simply spending and not much of it will stimulate anything. If you are to believe republicans, only 12% of the bill is only stimulous.


On the other side of the aisle, republicans have proposed a bill and had the numbers verified by the same entities that verified the democrat bill. The republican bill is about half the size and according their numbers, will create double the jobs.


Any other thoughts?

I will add that I am completely against any type of govt stimulous bill, in any form.

[F8d2Blk]

I have to agree that this is a bunch of bull. I hope Obama goes down for it. Quit the stimulus crap and cut our taxes.

[alpine_aw11]

I have to agree that this is a bunch of bull. I hope Obama goes down for it. Quit the stimulus crap and cut our taxes.

As much as we would all love taxes to get cut, the fact is we can't afford it. If we didn't have 10 trillion dollars (I'm sure it's more now) to pay off a tax cut would be lovely.

What are all the details of this bill? I'm sure some lobbyist groups are going to bank off it.

[BanginJimmy]

What are all the details of this bill? I'm sure some lobbyist groups are going to bank off it.

That is one of the issues with the bill. ALOT of the money in it is shrouded in VERY vague language. It is very difficult to find who will ultimately get the money, and who will have control of the money.


Parts of the bill that I am completley against:
500M for NASA (senate, 400 in house)
100M to ACORN
250M to different "community based groups" (one of the very vague parts)


The list goes on for a long time.

[BanginJimmy]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – After a failed "charm offensive," US President Barack Obama and his allies unleashed a hard-hitting campaign Thursday to break defiant Republicans' thus-far united opposition to his economic stimulus plan.

The strategy called for millions of labor union members to telephone Republicans from hard-hit states, coupled with an aggressive television advertising campaign targeting potentially vulnerable Republican senators.

The ad featured Obama's warnings about the economic crisis he inherited from George W. Bush and invited viewers in Maine, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Iowa to tell their senators "support the Obama plan for jobs not the failed policies of the past," according to the script.

And the White House did not deny a report by Politico.com that it planned a state-by-state effort, highlighting job losses, to pressure lawmakers on the stimulus plan.

The aggressive tactics came after Obama's week-long charm offensive failed to win over even a single Republican when the House of Representatives voted 244-188 to pass the 819-billion-dollar measure.

Obama invited leaders from both parties and both chambers to the White House on Friday, held private talks with Senate and House Republicans on Tuesday, and invited lawmakers over for cocktails late Wednesday after the vote.

Obama is "disappointed" but "knows it's going to take longer than a few days to change the way Washington works," spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a round of US television network interviews. "His hand will continue to be extended."

Obama said in a statement after Wednesday's vote that the bill was sound but that he was prepared to embrace changes as it winds its way through the Senate -- where Republican minority has more clout to stall or alter the measure.

"Obama's doing very, very well on that. He can say he's been going the extra distance, he's been listening to what they have to say," said Eric Davis, an expert on presidential politics at Middlebury College in Vermont.

The White House has signalled that it expects the Senate to approve more Republican-friendly items, leading to a House-Senate "conference" to produce a compromise bill that would be more likely to win Republican support.

Some Democrats argue privately that the Republicans are sticking by their natural tax-cut leanings while figuring cynically that the party gains nothing from supporting a Democratic measure whether it succeeds or fails and are best off if they oppose a bill that fails to revive the economy.

"That's not likely," said Davis, because "we won't know until later this year, early next year, what the big economic numbers are. And if the economic numbers get better, I don't think it'll have as much to do with this bill as other steps to help banks, maybe automakers."

House Republicans, who point out that 11 Democrats voted against the plan, says their ideas are better and recently carried out public opinion polling that found tax cuts edge out spending as a preferred stimulus mechanism.

Lawmakers "will have no trouble returning home and explaining to struggling families that they voted against a bill that would recklessly spend billions upon billions of dollars on non-stimulative and non-emergency government programs," said Republican Whip Eric Cantor's spokesman, Brad Dayspring.

But Republican senators, accusing their Democratic colleagues of ignoring Obama's appeal for bipartisanship, lined up at a press briefing to deny they were seeking to extract political capital.

"As an American I want to see the right thing done regardless of who gets the credit," Senator Bob Bennett of Utah said. "I'm going to vote against this package because it won't work."

Overall, however, Obama and the stimulus plan are popular with the US public, and Republicans have to worry about "whether in three months they want to be known only as 'the party of no,'" said Davis.


It seems that Obama has given up on bipartisanship and has resorted to negative campaigns to get what he wants.

[§treet_§peed]

Me and Mike were discussing this on AIM a little while ago. We were talking about the depreciation of the value of the American dollar while Inflation is slowing rising. Yeah i like getting extra money, but not dumb money. If something is not done, correctly and fast, America will tank...Very soon. When America does, slowly every other country will.

[§treet_§peed]

another thing to look at is some things in my thread.

[stephen]

It seems that Obama has given up on bipartisanship and has resorted to negative campaigns to get what he wants.

dude...bipartisanship is a two way street. conservatives just want "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts." that doesn't do a damn thing to stimulate the economy. i said it before, and i'll say it again...take a look at WHY ohio is in a budget crisis...their biggest pitfall...TAX CUTS. tax cuts were in place during the bush administration...what good did it do? conservatives look at things as "all or none" and that's far from bipartisanship. obama already had a large percentage of the stimulus go towards tax cuts. he even tossed in a little more to satisfy them. i'm just saying...it's more to the story than "DAMN OBAMA."

[§treet_§peed]

^ Who is worse off? California or Ohio?

[BanginJimmy]

dude...bipartisanship is a two way street. conservatives just want "tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts." that doesn't do a damn thing to stimulate the economy. i said it before, and i'll say it again...take a look at WHY ohio is in a budget crisis...their biggest pitfall...TAX CUTS. tax cuts were in place during the bush administration...what good did it do? conservatives look at things as "all or none" and that's far from bipartisanship. obama already had a large percentage of the stimulus go towards tax cuts. he even tossed in a little more to satisfy them. i'm just saying...it's more to the story than "DAMN OBAMA."

As I said in my initial post, both parties are equally at fault, and both parties were equally quick to run to the press to accuse the other side. My biggest issue is with Obama being so quick to hammer republicans. That is nothing like bipartisanship, that is vindictivness.
Republican amendments were not even voted on in committee, as they should have been. Tax cuts DO help the economy, but in this case its not the only thing that needs to be done. I love what the Senate Republicans are pushing though. Part of the bill would require all steel used in infrastructure projects be American made if American made costs no more than 25% more. This type of additional spending would stimulate the economy. Not just throwing money around, but paying a little more for American made products for their products.

My biggest problem with these stimulus bills is that they are basicly spending bills. As I have pointed out, there are hundreds of millions in spending that is completely unrelated to stimulous. Such as AIDS research, NASA, and Global Warming. Even ACORN gets millions of dollars in this bill.

[white24d]

Trickle down economics doesnt work. GIving tax breaks to the rich will not create new jobs. What got this country out of the Great Depression? Works projects ( investing in the middle class, not tax cuts.), and ww2 but we dont need another one of those. With thousands losing jobs everyday , there needs to be something done. The rich in this country need to pick up their slack and pay their fair share of taxes. The middle class cant pay all of them. So if Obama cut my taxes what would happen? Nothing, another 25 bucks a week. Ha. The real money comes from the wealthy paying their fair share of this burden that they created.

[ash7]

The political scene these days is why i quit listening to talk radio, reading the papers, watching the Sunday afternoon shows, and pretty much cut myself out of the process altogether. it was like i was yelling at a brick wall or having a debate with a child

This is also why I'm moving to Riyadh in June - might as well make money before everything seriously goes down.

-jonathan

[ash7]

Trickle down economics doesnt work. GIving tax breaks to the rich will not create new jobs. What got this country out of the Great Depression? Works projects ( investing in the middle class, not tax cuts.), and ww2 but we dont need another one of those. With thousands losing jobs everyday , there needs to be something done. The rich in this country need to pick up their slack and pay their fair share of taxes. The middle class cant pay all of them. So if Obama cut my taxes what would happen? Nothing, another 25 bucks a week. Ha. The real money comes from the wealthy paying their fair share of this burden that they created.

Why then, is the top 10% of the population paying over 50% of the tax bill? What is their "fair share" as you say?

The correct way to do this would be a flat tax on everything and eliminating the income tax altogether... which would be terrific. Jobs, government income, and GDP would skyrocket as a result.

-jonathan

[white24d]

I am against the stimulus package that helps the banks and other orgs. This is like rewarding failure, no sense. This new "spending bill" will focus more on the communities not the corporations. Education and helping to create jobs will turn the economy not paying Citi Groups private plane payments.

[white24d]

A " flat tax " as you say would be a horrible idea. So the poor now can barely afford food, if you cut the income tax and the price of all goods rise then we make things worse. The poor families will then starve or be forced to go on government assisted programs and then lean on the government more. Fair tax has benefits but would be a huge mistake to do now.

[white24d]

Why then, is the top 10% of the population paying over 50% of the tax bill? What is their "fair share" as you say?

The correct way to do this would be a flat tax on everything and eliminating the income tax altogether... which would be terrific. Jobs, government income, and GDP would skyrocket as a result.

-jonathan


The top 10% as you say dont pay 50% of the taxes. Can you cite this claim

[4dmin]

There is always "Pork" in all bills... I think the failure of the republicans is showing again; stick your feet in the mud and point fingers. Honestly Obama should suspend all of their salaries b/c they all have fucked us over and over again. Republicans were fine for a stimulus package that had no oversight when their President was proposing it. Why not now?

At least Obama's plan is spending billions in needed infrastructure and creating jobs. I don't know everything that is being put into the proposed bill but this is exactly what the first bill should have been. As for the banks those who paid out company bonuses should all have to pay back the Billions they stole from the US tax payers.

[white24d]

There is always "Pork" in all bills... I think the failure of the republicans is showing again; stick your feet in the mud and point fingers. Honestly Obama should suspend all of their salaries b/c they all have fucked us over and over again. Republicans were fine for a stimulus package that had no oversight when their President was proposing it. Why not now?

At least Obama's plan is spending billions in needed infrastructure and creating jobs. I don't know everything that is being put into the proposed bill but this is exactly what the first bill should have been. As for the banks those who paid out company bonuses should all have to pay back the Billions they stole from the US tax payers.


I agree :goodjob:

[ash7]

The top 10% as you say dont pay 50% of the taxes. Can you cite this claim

sure... it's actually worse than i remember as the top 5% pay 50 percent of the income tax burden. A closer look actually shows that the top 1% (a total of 1 million people) pay a staggering 29% of the tax.


http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

how is this fair again? Who is the biggest employer in the country? Small business. Who owns small businesses? Rich people. How is taxing them even more going to help them to expand their business (which they will naturally want to do to increase their profits) and hire more people?

-jonathan

[BanginJimmy]

What got this country out of the Great Depression? Works projects ( investing in the middle class, not tax cuts.), and ww2 but we dont need another one of those.

WWII was all that got us out of the Great Depression. The New Deal had nothing to do with it. Unemployment was the same in 1933 as it was in 1938.





With thousands losing jobs everyday , there needs to be something done.

I agree. The age old question though, is what needs to be done.




The rich in this country need to pick up their slack and pay their fair share of taxes. The middle class cant pay all of them. So if Obama cut my taxes what would happen? Nothing, another 25 bucks a week. Ha. The real money comes from the wealthy paying their fair share of this burden that they created.

The top 50% of wage earners make pay more than 97% of all income taxes assessed by the federal govt. The bottom 25% have a negative tax liability which means they get more money back than they put in to start with. That means the middle class and lower middle class, which make up about 25% of tax payers, pay a total of about 2.5% of income federal income taxes.

[BanginJimmy]

There is always "Pork" in all bills...

And that is a serious problem. If a particular project is worth federal funding then it should be able to stand up to critisism and investigation. Tucking it away in a completely unrelated bill makes it sound like what it really is, a bribe for votes.




I think the failure of the republicans is showing again; stick your feet in the mud and point fingers.

With all due respect, the dems did this several times over the last 2 years, especially on an energy policy. Neither party is above this type of behavior and all citizens, whether dem or rep, suffer for it.



Honestly Obama should suspend all of their salaries b/c they all have fucked us over and over again.

I agree. Put all of them on a publicly released expense account instead of a salary. Lets see where their money is really going.


Republicans were fine for a stimulus package that had no oversight when their President was proposing it. Why not now?

Republicans, along with alot of democrats, blocked the first bill in the house. That only changed after Reid bribed them with pork.


At least Obama's plan is spending billions in needed infrastructure and creating jobs.

There really isnt much for infrastructure and jobs in the original bill when you consider the size of it. I believe the total was less than 100B and most of that wouldnt be available until after 2010.


I don't know everything that is being put into the proposed bill but this is exactly what the first bill should have been.

There is another thread with a breakdown of everything in the bill. Most of it is pork and would only create a few short time jobs, with very little in long term job growth.



As for the banks those who paid out company bonuses should all have to pay back the Billions they stole from the US tax payers.

No complaints there. The simple fact that all these companies, including hollywood, are getting these bailouts is so far out of the federal govt's power its asinine.

[BanginJimmy]

not paying Citi Groups private plane payments.

Plane was paid for prior to financial market collapsing.

[white24d]

sure... it's actually worse than i remember as the top 5% pay 50 percent of the income tax burden. A closer look actually shows that the top 1% (a total of 1 million people) pay a staggering 29% of the tax.


http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

how is this fair again? Who is the biggest employer in the country? Small business. Who owns small businesses? Rich people. How is taxing them even more going to help them to expand their business (which they will naturally want to do to increase their profits) and hire more people?

-jonathan

The numbers that are on that link, represent the taxes from the 70's up to 95'. Who was the president in 95 and how was the economy? exactly. The Bush adm have given the rich so many tax breaks that this info is no longer close to acccurate. What happened to the economy when this happened. Compare your paycheck to a persons paycheck who makes 5 million a year. There will obviously be a huge difference in the numbers, as it should be. Everyone pays taxes, and the issue with this whole thing is the idea that if you cut taxes for the rich , jobs will come out of thin air. Not true.Investing in the middle class and physically paying to create jobs is the only way. Our own Saxby Chambliss is one of the knuckle heads that is standing in Obama's way, when all he wants to do is send revenue to Ga to create jobs. The ladder of leadership starts at the bottom and we have so many idiots in the government that half the time we vote against our own self interest.

[§treet_§peed]

IMO the base for determining how much in taxes you pay should be simple like this.. The more money you make the more in taxes you pay. The less money you make the less in taxes you pay. like i said this is what should be use to base a design for a new tax system and not some fancy over hyped idea that took them 4 or more years to come up with. because they were to busy sucking one another off telling themselves how good they are.

[white24d]

Plane was paid for prior to financial market collapsing.

yeah, they say that the plan was to buy it before the meltdown. Why did it take this long for them to cancel it? If the media hadn't got a hold of it they prob would have kept it. This is the snake in the grass shit that needs to stop.

[4dmin]

There really isnt much for infrastructure and jobs in the original bill when you consider the size of it. I believe the total was less than 100B and most of that wouldnt be available until after 2010.


I know saw a report on how much would be coming to GA and it was around 4.? billion... with a large % going to nothing but infrastructure: schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc.... considering over 40% of the construction force is unemployed infrastructure jobs are a must.

[ash7]

The numbers that are on that link, represent the taxes from the 70's up to 95'. Who was the president in 95 and how was the economy? exactly. The Bush adm have given the rich so many tax breaks that this info is no longer close to acccurate. What happened to the economy when this happened. Compare your paycheck to a persons paycheck who makes 5 million a year. There will obviously be a huge difference in the numbers, as it should be. Everyone pays taxes, and the issue with this whole thing is the idea that if you cut taxes for the rich , jobs will come out of thin air. Not true.Investing in the middle class and physically paying to create jobs is the only way. Our own Saxby Chambliss is one of the knuckle heads that is standing in Obama's way, when all he wants to do is send revenue to Ga to create jobs. The ladder of leadership starts at the bottom and we have so many idiots in the government that half the time we vote against our own self interest.

so wrong on so many levels it's not even worth debating anymore.

I'm sure that by creating an even larger government, all of our problems will be solved. Everyone will have jobs, our economy will not collapse, and the precious poor people will not starve. I mean, we can look to Europe for inspiration, right? :goodjob: Obviously they know how to run things. :)

I'm finished here
-jonathan

[BanginJimmy]

I know saw a report on how much would be coming to GA and it was around 4.? billion... with a large % going to nothing but infrastructure: schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, etc.... considering over 40% of the construction force is unemployed infrastructure jobs are a must.

Maybe I am just not getting my point across well enough, I dont know. I agree that if we are going to be stuck with a stimulous bill that it should be spent on infrastructure. I simply dont agree with all of the other spending in it. They could make this an infrastructure bill much like the New Deal and it would be 1/5 of the current bill.

When you go back and look without bias though, the New Deal did not help the economy in the long run. We have a lot more infrastructure now so it may help a little longer, but in the end we will be right back where we are now, minus ANOTHER 819B, for a grand total of 1.69T dollars. We have already heard Obama say that another stimulous plan will likely be needed also. How much will that one cost us?

[white24d]

so wrong on so many levels it's not even worth debating anymore.

I'm sure that by creating an even larger government, all of our problems will be solved. Everyone will have jobs, our economy will not collapse, and the precious poor people will not starve. I mean, we can look to Europe for inspiration, right? :goodjob: Obviously they know how to run things. :)

I'm finished here
-jonathan

SO wrong on so many levels?
:screwy: right........

[F8d2Blk]

How much is that going to cost us?


To much! And I am sorry but constructions jobs usually go to illegals.

[F8d2Blk]

My idea is lets split the country in 2. Those that want a large government go to one side and those that want free enterprise and smaller government go to the other side! Lets see who really wins this economy battle!

[BanginJimmy]

My idea is lets split the country in 2. Those that want a large government go to one side and those that want free enterprise and smaller government go to the other side! Lets see who really wins this economy battle!

name a single govt run venture or program that has been sucessful, then answer your own question.

[_Christian_]

The numbers that are on that link, represent the taxes from the 70's up to 95'. Who was the president in 95 and how was the economy? exactly. The Bush adm have given the rich so many tax breaks that this info is no longer close to acccurate.
O rly? http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6