LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about! (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=824)

SlaveNoMore 02-17-2009 10:53 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V, Addendum
 
PS - in case you missed it, the Senator was Barack Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381783)
This Senator hits a home run with this quote, and nails exactly what happened in the last week:
----

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.”

“If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist.’

“For the minority party in such circumstances, ‘bipartisanship’ comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist.’”


Tyrone Slothrop 02-17-2009 10:56 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381783)
the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist’ ...

The stimulus bill was 65% spending, 35% tax cuts.

SlaveNoMore 02-17-2009 11:01 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381786)
The stimulus bill was 65% spending, 35% tax cuts.

Can you please stipulate that giving money to someone/something that has not previously paid anything nor would be required to pay anything should not be defined as a "cut"?

Adder 02-17-2009 11:07 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381783)
This Senator hits a home run with this quote, and nails exactly what happened in the last week:
----

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.”

“If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist.’

“For the minority party in such circumstances, ‘bipartisanship’ comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist.’”

This defines steamrolled as being in the minority and only getting 10% of what you want. That seems specious.

ETA: Even if Obama said it.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-17-2009 11:29 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381787)
Can you please stipulate that giving money to someone/something that has not previously paid anything nor would be required to pay anything should not be defined as a "cut"?

For these purposes, that truly is a distinction without a difference. The question ought to be -- was -- how best to stimulate the economy. My point remains that Obama designed a package -- from the start -- that included a healthy proportion of the sort of stimulus approach that the GOP favors. (Setting aside the neo-Hooverites who think that stimulus is impossible because it has to be repaid with tax dollars.)

SlaveNoMore 02-18-2009 12:05 AM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381794)
For these purposes, that truly is a distinction without a difference. The question ought to be -- was -- how best to stimulate the economy. My point remains that Obama designed a package -- from the start -- that included a healthy proportion of the sort of stimulus approach that the GOP favors. (Setting aside the neo-Hooverites who think that stimulus is impossible because it has to be repaid with tax dollars.)

And I would counter that this is highly false, when you learn that "Tax Cuts" -the GOP plank to which you are referring - under the Spending Bill are a truly different animal.

The GOP - at least the one I used to identify with - hardly favored redistributionist giveaways from those actually receiving a tax bill.

Adder 02-18-2009 09:36 AM

I think I might be sinking
 
I usually try to avoid the mess in Sacramento, but this sounds like it could be really bad:

Quote:

In a Legislature dominated by Democrats, some of whom lean far to the left, leaders have been unable to gather enough support from Republican lawmakers, who tend on average to be more conservative than the majority of California’s Republican voters and have unequivocally opposed all tax increases.
link

Also overheard on NPR this morning one of the R legislators saying that the private sector is tightening its belt and laying people off, so why shouldn't the state government. Completely clueless.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 10:09 AM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381795)
And I would counter that this is highly false, when you learn that "Tax Cuts" -the GOP plank to which you are referring - under the Spending Bill are a truly different animal.

The GOP - at least the one I used to identify with - hardly favored redistributionist giveaways from those actually receiving a tax bill.

You're just not responding to what I'm saying. You can think about the stimulus as spending per se, or you can think about how it stimulates the economy. You keep going back to the first point. I understand that Republicans do not like to spend money but do like to cut taxes for rich people. However, it is universally understood that that's a lousy way to stimulate the economy. So re my second point, that wasn't an option. Yes, the GOP voted to cut the death tax. But I don't think even they thought that was much of a stimulus -- it was more a way to remind wealthy supporters who care about such things who their friends are.

This argument is silly, though, because for all your attacks on Obama's putative lack of bipartisanship, you can't be bothered to hold the GOP to the same standard, to pretend that they made an effort to be bipartisan or that you would have thought it was a good thing if they had.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 11:05 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Poll:

Roland Burris--out by:

a) end of week
b) end of month
c) end of year
d) end of term.

I'll take a.

Adder 02-18-2009 11:07 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 381809)
Poll:

Roland Burris--out by:

a) end of week
b) end of month
c) end of year
d) end of term.

I'll take a.

I suspect that he will be a stubborn as Blago, and I haven't yet heard evidence of actual wrongdoing that would support removal. I suspect the senate holds its nose and keeps him until the end of the term, so I take d. Too bad though.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 11:16 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381810)
I haven't yet heard evidence of actual wrongdoing that would support removal.

Perjury? He denied contact with Blago in affidavits, and then turns out he was asked to do fundraising for him. Granted, he rejected those overtures, but why did he deny having had the contact in the first place? And why didn't he tell the Senate that when asked?

I don't know how it should turn out, but there's even more smoke now in the smokey rooms of Illinois politics.

Sidd Finch 02-18-2009 11:21 AM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381783)
This Senator hits a home run with this quote, and nails exactly what happened in the last week:
----

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.”

“If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist.’

“For the minority party in such circumstances, ‘bipartisanship’ comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist.’”

So you think Obama included tax cuts in the bailout plan, not because he wanted to bring Rs into the fold, but because tax cuts were part of "100% of what he wanted"?

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 11:25 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 381812)
Perjury? He denied contact with Blago in affidavits, and then turns out he was asked to do fundraising for him. Granted, he rejected those overtures, but why did he deny having had the contact in the first place? And why didn't he tell the Senate that when asked?

I don't know how it should turn out, but there's even more smoke now in the smokey rooms of Illinois politics.

didn't the Senate already decide that perjury is no reason for removal from office?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 11:29 AM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381816)
didn't the Senate already decide that perjury is no reason for removal from office?

Impeachment of a president requires 2/3 vote. Can't Senate expel a member on majority vote?

And, FWIW, the Senate based their seating of him in part on his representations in the affidavits that now apparently don't contain the "whole" truth. Seems a bit more directly connected than perjury on a blow job. Not saying perjury isn't perjury, but the point being Burris started on thin ice.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 11:36 AM

Here's a really excellent blog post about why the Buffalo plane crash may have happened.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 11:46 AM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 381814)
So you think Obama included tax cuts in the bailout plan, not because he wanted to bring Rs into the fold, but because tax cuts were part of "100% of what he wanted"?

A Politico writer drew lessons for Democrats -- note the end of the first lesson.

Quote:

Here are seven lessons the Democrats should take from the stimulus, culled from two dozen Politico interviews with the people who hammered out the deal:

1. House Republicans are furniture

Over and over, Nancy Pelosi and her allies privately delivered the same message to Barack Obama: Mr. President, you can have bipartisanship or you can have a stimulus bill, but you can’t have both.

He seems to have gotten the message. House Republicans, badly outnumbered and shorn of let's-make-a-deal moderates by their losses in the two elections, have proven remarkably immune to crossover appeals, as have most GOP senators.

On Thursday, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s point man, told reporters that his boss was still committed to bipartisanship, but admitted something fundamental had changed when the GOP “shift[ed] from bipartisan overtures to outright mockery.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) put it more bluntly — blaming much of the week’s drama on Obama’s commitment to courting House Republicans, even after it was apparent they wanted to cast a unanimous nay as a point of partisan pride and principle.

"I don't think he should have set the expectation he was going to get Republican votes," the Financial Services chairman told Politico on Friday. "He set himself a high bar — and an irrelevant bar… and he didn't achieve it… He should not have legitimized [the notion of bipartisanship], that prompted their partisan reaction... I don't think he's going to make that mistake again."

One Democrat likened Obama’s desire to score even a single GOP defector to Abraham’s pursuit of a “single virtuous man” in Sodom and Gomorrah.

After Friday’s stimulus shutout, House Republicans were snickering at Obama’s courtship of moderate Michigan GOPer Fred Upton, who got an invite to the president’s Super Bowl party and a ride on Air Force One – and still voted no.

“The president learned a lesson,” one GOP aide quipped. “Fred’s going to ride on your plane, eat your M&Ms, but he ain’t going to vote for your bill.”
Note the GOP aide mocking the President for trying to win over a Republican Congressman, only to have his efforts spurned -- the exact opposite of the picture Slave is trying to paint.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-18-2009 11:52 AM

The New York Post
 
http://imgsrv.1010wins.com/image/DbG...1176483.jpg640

http://www.1010wins.com/Does-Cartoon...o-Far-/3874917

TM

taxwonk 02-18-2009 12:01 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381783)
This Senator hits a home run with this quote, and nails exactly what happened in the last week:
----

“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.”

“If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist.’

“For the minority party in such circumstances, ‘bipartisanship’ comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist.’”

Sounds exactly like the Republican Congress, only with the winners and losers reversed. This doesn't make it right; it just confirms my statement the other day that all of the Legislative Branch as a collective body is just a bucket of assholes.

taxwonk 02-18-2009 12:03 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381787)
Can you please stipulate that giving money to someone/something that has not previously paid anything nor would be required to pay anything should not be defined as a "cut"?

Can you explain how that applies to any portion of the bill?

taxwonk 02-18-2009 12:04 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381795)
And I would counter that this is highly false, when you learn that "Tax Cuts" -the GOP plank to which you are referring - under the Spending Bill are a truly different animal.

The GOP - at least the one I used to identify with - hardly favored redistributionist giveaways from those actually receiving a tax bill.

Bullshit. Cap gains, special dividends received deductions, and the estate tax are all examples of people who used to pay taxes being told they don't need to pay as much any more.

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 12:07 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381821)
A Politico writer drew lessons for Democrats -- note the end of the first lesson.



Note the GOP aide mocking the President for trying to win over a Republican Congressman, only to have his efforts spurned -- the exact opposite of the picture Slave is trying to paint.

you quote an aide as representing the party? vocabulary word for today cred-a-bil-ity.

how is this analysis different than one Bush and the Rs might have reached circa 2002 or so, when they "threw out any attempt to work with dems and started acting like they were the only party around?"

I mean, I think the R congressmen are for the most part Neaderthals, so I'm not talking about substance, just about how quickly the Ds seem to have gotten to what the condemned not so long ago.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 12:17 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381831)
you quote an aide as representing the party? vocabulary word for today cred-a-bil-ity.

I didn't say anything about representing anything. I said Slave is painting one picture, and that GOP aide is painting another. I'll leave it to you to decide who better has their finger on the pulse of the Republicans on the Hill.

Quote:

how is this analysis different than one Bush and the Rs might have reached circa 2002 or so, when they "threw out any attempt to work with dems and started acting like they were the only party around?"
Which analysis? The Politico reporter is telling a story about Obama having tried to reach out to the GOP, and their having spurned him. That's not what happened in 2002.

I'm sure Slave is happy with the Republicans on the Hill who stuck to their guns rather than compromise with the President. Contrast that to, e.g., Sen. Kennedy working with the White House on No Child Left Behind.

Adder 02-18-2009 12:43 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381821)
A Politico writer drew lessons for Democrats -- note the end of the first lesson.



Note the GOP aide mocking the President for trying to win over a Republican Congressman, only to have his efforts spurned -- the exact opposite of the picture Slave is trying to paint.

All the more reason for Obama to continue to try to court them.

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 12:45 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381834)
I didn't say anything about representing anything. I said Slave is painting one picture, and that GOP aide is painting another. I'll leave it to you to decide who better has their finger on the pulse of the Republicans on the Hill.

i know you know this, but aides tend to young dumb and mouthy. why post something that implies one should put any weight on anything they say?

Adder 02-18-2009 12:46 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381831)
you quote an aide as representing the party? vocabulary word for today cred-a-bil-ity.

how is this analysis different than one Bush and the Rs might have reached circa 2002 or so, when they "threw out any attempt to work with dems and started acting like they were the only party around?"

I mean, I think the R congressmen are for the most part Neaderthals, so I'm not talking about substance, just about how quickly the Ds seem to have gotten to what the condemned not so long ago.


Your point is well taken, but I'm not sure it is clear yet that Obama will go down that path. I hope not.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 01:09 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381844)
i know you know this, but aides tend to young dumb and mouthy. why post something that implies one should put any weight on anything they say?

Because of the two stories -- one, that Republicans are frustrated because Obama did not try to be bipartisan; other other, that Obama tried to be bipartisan and got cockblocked by the Republicans, who aren't going to be that easy -- I think the latter is far more accurate. Obviously, there are some Republicans in either camp. Maybe Sen. Voinovich was prepared to vote for the stimulus if Obama had just tried a little more. But I think most of them decided that as between getting co-opted in a legislative process that would redound to Obama's credit if successful, and denying him the bipartisan imprimatur that he appears to want, they would rather have the latter. Which is what that GOP aide is crowing about.

But maybe Politico's reporter found a GOP aide who's out of touch.

Adder 02-18-2009 01:14 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
The racial overtones did not occur to me at first as I viewed it as an obvious reference to the chimp attack yesterday rather than to the President. But it is definitely questionable.

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 01:15 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381857)
Because of the two stories -- one, that Republicans are frustrated because Obama did not try to be bipartisan; other other, that Obama tried to be bipartisan and got cockblocked by the Republicans, who aren't going to be that easy -- I think the latter is far more accurate. Obviously, there are some Republicans in either camp. Maybe Sen. Voinovich was prepared to vote for the stimulus if Obama had just tried a little more. But I think most of them decided that as between getting co-opted in a legislative process that would redound to Obama's credit if successful, and denying him the bipartisan imprimatur that he appears to want, they would rather have the latter. Which is what that GOP aide is crowing about.

But maybe Politico's reporter found a GOP aide who's out of touch.

ummm, I was talking about using an aide as evidence of much. what you've just posted boils down to: i think the republicans had bad intent, so I believe the aide (although they are notoriously useless), since he said they have bad intent. if that is what you meant to convey, you have suceeeded.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 02-18-2009 01:18 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381858)
The racial overtones did not occur to me at first as I viewed it as an obvious reference to the chimp attack yesterday rather than to the President. But it is definitely questionable.

It's an obvious reference to that, but what's the connection between the chimp attack and the stimulus package?

Adder 02-18-2009 01:21 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 381860)
It's an obvious reference to that, but what's the connection between the chimp attack and the stimulus package?

I took the suggestion to be that it in the cartoonist view the bill was a mess that could have been written by a chimp.

Hank Chinaski 02-18-2009 01:25 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381861)
I took the suggestion to be that it in the cartoonist view the bill was a mess that could have been written by a chimp.

I think that is it. Obama didn't write any of it, did he?

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 01:30 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381859)
ummm, I was talking about using an aide as evidence of much. what you've just posted boils down to: i think the republicans had bad intent, so I believe the aide (although they are notoriously useless), since he said they have bad intent. if that is what you meant to convey, you have suceeeded.

Your unceasing efforts to monitor my epistemology surely will find their proper reward, in this life or the next.

Adder 02-18-2009 01:31 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 381862)
I think that is it. Obama didn't write any of it, did he?

In a literal sense, I suspect not, but I'm not sure that technicality absolves the cartoonist.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 01:37 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 381860)
It's an obvious reference to that, but what's the connection between the chimp attack and the stimulus package?

Much editorial cartooning consists of the juxtaposition of two otherwise unrelated stories of the day. This cartoon doesn't work for exactly the reason you describe. Whoever drew it was mailing it in.

Atticus Grinch 02-18-2009 03:09 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381865)
Much editorial cartooning consists of the juxtaposition of two otherwise unrelated stories of the day. This cartoon doesn't work for exactly the reason you describe. Whoever drew it was mailing it in.

This. It is guilty of being unfunny and uninsightful, but I doubt the cartoonist had Obama particularly in mind. I could be wrong, but I tend to presume good faith whenever someone is attempting to be funny to a general audience because it's hard work.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-18-2009 03:16 PM

Week in review.
 
Quote:

Washington, D.C. – Republican firefighters responded to a series of blazes that swept through the financial districts of the nation’s major cities this past week and continue to rage from coast to coast.

The cause of the fires is not known, but some Democratic analysts are suggesting that the fires may have started in the electrical systems of the buildings, which were stripped of insulation as a result of the Free Industry and Real Estate to Unleash Power (FIRE UP) Act of 2002.

Republican fire marshals dismissed the suggestion, accusing Democrats of “playing politics” with the fires, and called for bipartisan solutions to the crisis. “If anything caused these fires, and we’re not convinced of that to begin with,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), “it was excessive regulation. Red tape is notoriously combustible, and these buildings were shrouded in it. Sarbanes-Oxley has a lot to answer for.”

Democratic electricians were surprised by Boehner’s remarks, pointing out that exposed wires carry electrical “current” and are widely considered a fire hazard. “This isn’t rocket science,” said electrical analyst Paul Krugman. “It’s really EE 101. It’s very basic stuff.”

Speaking on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company,” however, Nobel Prize nominee Ben Stein argued that “conductivity” was just a theory, and that more research was necessary before it would be possible to determine whether in fact electricity “flows” in such a way as to be associated with the outbreak of fires. “Wires and fires are completely different things,” said Stein. “The one thing we do know is that rubber is extremely dangerous.”

“We don’t need the Democrat party to tell us about impedance,” added Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Impedance we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban.”

The Obama Administration has announced that it will offer a two-part response to the crisis, consisting of a “fire brigade” armed with high-pressure water hoses and a sweeping plan to re-insulate the buildings’ electrical systems. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), however, promised to filibuster any bill that consisted of “simply throwing water at the problem.” “This is not a firefighting plan,” McConnell charged, “it’s a water plan.” Noting that Obama’s re-insulation initiative would be costly and that its effects would not be felt for years, McConnell proposed instead that Republican firefighters respond to the blazes with flamethrowers and oil-soaked rags.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, added that the historical record indicates that Democratic policies could lead to disaster. “Just look at FDR,” said Gingrich, an avid student of history. “Roosevelt’s creation of the Federal Deposit and Insulation Corporation led to the Great Chicago Fire that killed hundreds and destroyed four square miles of that city. If you want to see America gutted and smoldering, just follow Democrat advice.”

From across the political spectrum, commentators David Broder and David Brooks indicated that the threat of a filibuster would likely bring down the Obama presidency. “We need to take the best ideas of both parties,” Broder told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “If Obama can’t find grounds for compromise—some water and insulation, yes, but also some flamethrowers and oil-soaked rags—he will have betrayed the promise of his presidency, which was, after all, to transcend partisan politics in Washington.” Brooks agreed, adding ominously that “Obama’s credibility is at stake, and so far he’s not passing the test.”

Congressional Democrats have indicated that they are willing to consider oil-soaked rags and flamethrowers in the final bill. In a gesture to moderate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that Democrats would also add oxygen, polyester, and small explosive devices to the compromise. But thirty-six GOP senators stood firm, declaring in a press conference that they would not accept any bill that contained water. “Water will simply be neutralized by my superabsorbent undergarments,” said David Vitter (R-LA). “And it’s socialist,” added John McCain (R-AZ), who pointed to the widespread use of water among Swedish firefighters.

President Obama, speaking in Ohio, said he would “continue to reach across the aisle for oil-soaked rags.”

The emerging Washington consensus appears to be that Republican firefighters and political leaders have won this round of the debate. “Obama’s popularity has taken a hit,” wrote Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal. “Last week he had a 68 percent approval rating, but this week fully one-quarter of the American people disapprove of him. These are alarming figures that suggest the Obama honeymoon is finally over.” Fox News firefighting analyst Neil Cavuto agreed, noting that “Obama has been going around telling people that ‘doing nothing is not an option,’ but that’s patently misleading. No one is suggesting that we do nothing. On the contrary, Republicans are insisting that we fight fire with fire. And that’s a winning formula if ever there was one.”
Who else?

SlaveNoMore 02-18-2009 03:32 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 381814)
So you think Obama included tax cuts in the bailout plan, not because he wanted to bring Rs into the fold, but because tax cuts were part of "100% of what he wanted"?

As I pointed out, a lot of these "cuts" are nothing more than redistributions from the paying to the non-paying class.

So yes, I think that was 100% of what he wanted.

Adder 02-18-2009 03:33 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore (Post 381881)
As I pointed out, a lot of these "cuts" are nothing more than redistributions from the paying to the non-paying class.

So yes, I think that was 100% of what he wanted.

Because he hates the paying? Or because people will less disposable income may actually spend the stimulus rather than save it?

SlaveNoMore 02-18-2009 03:36 PM

Re: Spending Bill, Part V
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 381834)
Which analysis? The Politico reporter is telling a story about Obama having tried to reach out to the GOP, and their having spurned him. That's not what happened in 2002

Where in his "We won" speech - or the subsequent lockout during the House-Senate reconciliation meetings -was there any attempt for GOP input?

SlaveNoMore 02-18-2009 03:38 PM

Re: The New York Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 381858)
The racial overtones did not occur to me at first as I viewed it as an obvious reference to the chimp attack yesterday rather than to the President. But it is definitely questionable.

I get the "written by a chimp" part - but I guess you needed to actually know there was a chimp attack somewhere to make the connection.

Pretty poor as these cartoons go.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com