Zero is an Easy Number to Remember
At a time when Americans are looking to their government to do something, doing nothing strikes me as political suicide. And that’s exactly what Republicans did yesterday – Nothing. Even worse, they did “nothing” in lockstep.
And, no matter how many politicians and pundits they trot out to defend their position only one message will come through loud and clear: Not a single Republicans voted for the stimulus package.
Don’t kid yourself, Republicans, that is the message. And it’s a powerful one. But the worst part for you is the fact that you aren’t controlling the message. Obama made sure of that by including you every step of the way. Perhaps if he hadn’t courted you, you’d have a case. But he did, and you don’t.
Not a single Republicans voted for the stimulus package.
That’s the headline. That’s what everyone is talking about. Not family planning or new sod. But keep on playing the ideology game, keep voting along party lines. It just makes keeping score easier.
Voting No was the best play Republicans have. Remember what happened to them when they all voted against Clinton’s plan in 1993? They retook Congress in 1994, even as Clinton’s plan was succeeding.
Voters as a group are not reknowned for their analysis skills. If we avoid disaster and the economy is sorta OK in 2010, all voters will know from the Repubs is that Dems raised taxes, Dems spent a lot of money, and Repubs were against it. And disaster didn’t come, so – Hey look, there are two guys getting married over there!
anon, I hope you’re wrong. I believe the people of the United States know that this economic crisis is going to take time to fix. I guess we’ll find out in 2010, but I believe the Republicans are on the wrong side of history on this one.
… and on the other hand, any Repub who voted FOR the package would start absorbing withering abuse from the wingnut base as a traitor and collaborator, and would probably face a Club For Growth-funded primary.
Make no mistake, all the GOP contributors want this to pass, because they will be getting contracts.
But for Repubs in Congress, voting No is a free vote, because they know it is going to pass anyway. Their contributors will not hold it against them. This is just the kind of vote Mike Castle loves.
The real test comes when this Bill returns to the house . Nancy and the Dem’s should not allow any Repuk’s to attend the meeting just shut them out.
Absolutely right Pandora. Americans are paying attention and they are hearing that 100% of the Republicans don’t care if they ever climb out of the ditch that Bush created. It is no longer Banana Republic it has become Republican Republic and they just took full ownership. They created it, they love it, and they want it to continue forever.
I don’t think it will be that easy for them this time, anon. The Republican message was sent loud and clear. Their option for winning is hoping that the economy continues to fail and people blame Democrats for it.
I like this one by Bob Cesca: “This bears repeating: the people who got everything wrong for at least the last eight years and then spent the better part of a week spreading misinformation about the most important economic debate since the New Deal are demanding to be taken seriously? That’s rich.”
And then this gem, from the NRCC web page: “Thanks to Republican economic policies, the U.S. economy is robust and job creation is strong. Republican tax cuts are creating jobs and continuing to strengthen the economy, yet there is still more to do so that every American who wants a job can find one.”
And we should listen to these people???
The no vote was purely symbolic, and that’s what hurts Republicans. Like I said, that’s the headline.
And Clinton grew an economy that wasn’t in crisis – meaning most people, while not thrilled with the economy back then, weren’t worried about losing their job, home, and health insurance. The stakes are higher this time, and everyone is paying attention.
Yes, I am quite angry that the Republicans are playing games with our economy. This is my job we’re talking about if we don’t get some stimulus. I don’t care about any GOP symbolism, I care about being able to make a living.
Nancy and the Dem’s should not allow any Repuk’s to attend the meeting just shut them out.
That, UI (I know you didn’t write it) is EXACTLY what I am talking about in the other thread.
This is my job we’re talking about if we don’t get some stimulus.
Oh, I hear you on that. On the flip side, a lot of wingnuts on the D side (not you, but literally wingnuts) would like to see me unemployed via who my employer is. It all goes around.
Again, the $400 checks were fine. The $1200 checks were OK. $700B to banks just to shore up the balance sheet. Still good.
But now they draw the line!! Wow…
Smitty, I think Obama did the right thing by including the Republicans. It struck me, not only as the grown-up thing to do, but the ultimate win/win for Obama.
Republicans painted themselves as obstructionists with this symbolic vote – and they did it all by themselves.
Smitty, do me a favor and look at the pie chart on Cassandra’s post yesterday. Please tell me which part of it, you believe, the Republicans were against?
It seems to me that were are talking about tax cuts, infrastructure, energy independence, education and benefits to get people through the hard times in the next 12 months. What part of that did Mike Castle vote against?
So true, DG!
This just in: Castle explains vote against Stimulus: “It does nothing to assist our nation’s most precious resource: quarters.”
“Again, the $400 checks were fine. The $1200 checks were OK. $700B to banks just to shore up the balance sheet.”
Actually, the $400 checks didn’t work. The $1200 checks didn’t work. The $700B didn’t work.
At some point, you have to learn that the government can’t fix what individual behavior caused.
Yeah…can’t see that from here. All that pic and video goodness is blocked. Boo! That is a social-conservative GOP mindset! BOO! 😆 OK, I thought you’d enjoy that.
I did ask a question about the tax cut part last night, but it was buried in the avalanche of comments. What are the current tax cuts within the house-approved version? The article I read said the Republicans put forth an amendment that had tax cuts for middle-and-lower incomes, in addition to other tax incentives (which I would imagine would be biz incentives, but I don’t know). That amendment was denied, along party lines. The only tax cut I am aware of, then, is the payroll tax cut, meaning more net pay, but as Clyburn (?) pointed out on another issue, what good is that if you have no job?
Look, from what I know of the bill (there is a LOT left to learn because it is massive), I am OK with it. There is a lot there that I thought we should have been doing years ago (green technology being at my forefront), so I am happy as shit to see it more-or-less become mandated. However, there is a lot left to understand of it. What I am getting all snit-shitted about is the air of totalitarianism where the opposition should be muted and disallowed.
Really Dave? You don’t think Castle’s spineless cowardice in the face of GOP leadership browbeating (for the thousandth time) has anything to do with it?
$700B to banks just to shore up the balance sheet.”
The application of that was the worst freaking mistake ever and I’ve been saying that since it happened. What would have likely led to economic stimulus on that and easily increased consumer spending was the condition of a trade off with those pathetic organizations: take the bailout, cancel your consumers’ unsecured debt. It’s a hell of a lot better than writeoffs and no cash, right Citi (to name only one of many)? All the freed up disposable cash for how many Americans? It would have been an economic field day AND it was ahead of the holidays.
Actually, the $400 checks didn’t work. The $1200 checks didn’t work. The $700B didn’t work.
They did work, in that they supported consumer demand as intended.. but they didn’t stick, because they weren’t supported by a rational economic policy.
Keep in mind – the Recovery Act is just the beginning – it isn’t Obama’s entire economic plan. I fully expect the Recovery Act to be fully supported by smart policy.
X – I think Dave is referring to individuals penchant to ring up massive and overloaded debt. In addition to personal responsibility, I would happily throw corporate responsibility out there, too. They couldn’t help, but trip over their own feet allowing bad lending practices for the ultimate hope of bigger fees.
“The no vote was purely symbolic, and that’s what hurts Republicans. Like I said, that’s the headline.”
Bingo.
I hate to state the obvious, but the bill is chock full of job creation measures. More net pay means more net spending, which means more employed retail workers.
It’s called “tackling the problem from all sides” – jobs, wages, infrastructure (facilitates commerce), health care (reduces expenses), transparency (reduces waste), etc.
Greenspan over-relied on interest rate cuts during the 2001 recession, leading to an economic “recovery” without any wage growth. The great failure of Republican economics is a refusal to use all tools on the table.
Actually, I think the $350B bank bailout so far has kinda worked. I know a lot has been wasted and we don’t know where a lot is going (thanks Hank Paulson!) but the credit indicators have improved since the original credit crunch.
As far as the tax cuts in the bill, I think they are correctly aimed, as far as tax cuts go. I, personally, don’t like tax cuts because they are so indirect – you really only see them when you file your taxes. Immediate relief from payroll tax does go to people who are more likely to spend it.
I think Smitty is right that a better way to help all Americans is to just cancel some debt. Debt is what is holding down a lot of people. Plus debt relief wouldn’t only go to banks that got us into the mess. At least people would see some direct stimulus.
X – I think Dave is referring to individuals penchant to ring up massive and overloaded debt.
This is the direct result of the lag in real income under Bush, coupled with the lack of bank oversight.
The market will correct the consumer debt overload with inflation.
Yes, anon, I think it’s deflation followed by inflation.
I think it’s deflation followed by inflation.
ugh, not balloon animal sex again.
The market will correct the consumer debt overload with inflation.
Sure will and watch the personal bankruptices balloon because basic needs go out of affordibility range. Then the banks will need more money, because the write-offs subsequently balloon, and then we are right back were I said the application of the bailouts was HORRIBLY misapplied.
Inflation is a mixed bag. Modest inflation is good for consumers. What inflation really is is a tax on long-term investments, transferred to consumers.
The Bush economy has installed many engines that transfer wealth upward. Inflation is a powerful corrective tool.
Sure will and watch the personal bankruptices balloon because basic needs go out of affordibility range.
… and watch pensioners prosper, because interest rates go up and they get more yield on their savings.
Then the banks will need more money, because the write-offs subsequently balloon
No, because people will be happily paying down their mortgages with cheaper money.
Inflation is inevitable due to the Bush economy. The key now is to implement policies that promote wage inflation to keep up with commodity inflation.
X: Rep Clyburn is a D (SC) and the argument of no benefit with lack of jobs was his. Wouldn’t your rationalization then be contrarian to his argument? So, what may have been ‘stating the obvious’ to you really isn’t so obvious. His point is right in that without a job, what good is a tax cut as it doesn’t benefit all (what UI said). However, the payroll tax is included, so again, what good is that, per Clyburn’s argument? I’m being a bit snitty, though, because where Clyburn thought it would be a clever ploy to attack the Republican’s amendement with that quip, he essentially criticized the bill as well. This is why thinking things through and being constructive is better than partisan sniping, which BOTH sides are guilty of.
The key now is to implement policies that promote wage inflation to keep up with commodity inflation.
True, but what will be the effect of this cause? More inflation, for production becomes more expensive. Wage earners are almost always on the back edge of that cycle, keeping them always in catch up mode.
I sincerely believe a bankruptcy wave will be hitting within the next couple of years. Bankruptcy can’t touch mortgages, obviously, but there are mountains of unsecured debt floating around out there which will be wiped out. Cool cash? Guess again. This will be last-chance survival by many people who will likely be left with just enough cash to survive. They will be dead to credit for years as well. I don’t think it will be easily absorbed as I think you might be hinting.
Uh oh, looks like the Republicans aren’t happy with the headline they created.
In an editorial in Politico, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor says that Republicans can’t simply be the “no” party.
At a moment when the country needs our help, it would be a great mistake for the House GOP to turn inward and simply become the party of “no.” We want our new president to succeed, and America needs our new President to succeed, which is why we will contribute the full force of our ideas to help him navigate the choppy waters. That’s why our leadership met with the president three times to offer him our ideas on the stimulus, including among other proposals a reduction in small business tax liability by 20 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/gop-rep-we-cant-be-the-pa_n_162129.html
Clyburn was arguing for not including any tax cuts whatsoever – putting all the spending in stimulus. He was not arguing against the whole bill, which he voted for. And I disagree with Clyburn – we need to help more than just the unemployed.
Just as long as you understand that Clyburn’s argument (why cut taxes when spending is more effective) has nothing to do with the GOP’s argument (why spend money when you can do nothing).
To Dipshit Dave at FSP – Whether those other things “worked” or not was immaterial to my point. The point is that the GOP Members of Congress sucked off W at every turn – only now have they “seen the light” and shunned gov’t intervention. Timely.
I don’t know what it is about your comments. I have never met you but I fucking hate your guts.
The other dipshits that comment here amuse me (Protack, That gun-nut racist dude), but I actually really loathe you. I hope we never meet.
I see there is no mention in your post of the 11 Democrats who voted NO . WTF?
My point was not why didn’t everyone vote yes. It was why did every republican vote no.
I never expected the vote to be unanimous.
The vote by the Republicans was a petty, symbolic gesture, and they’re just starting to realize that they were played. Obama gave them enough rope…
Awesome, now it’s gone into threats. Fucking beautiful.
It’s not a threat, Smitty. Republicans had a choice. They chose the grand gesture…
That’s the liberal mantra, threats and name calling.
Umm… that wasn’t directed at me, was it?
No, I think DG.
“The point is that the GOP Members of Congress sucked off W at every turn – only now have they “seen the light” and shunned gov’t intervention. Timely.”
The last stimulus and the TARP program were done in Democratic Congresses. The GOP voted against TARP and against the UAW/Big 3 Bailout.
Facts are stubborn things.
“Whether those other things “worked” or not was immaterial to my point.”
Don’t worry. It’s immaterial to the Democratic Party as a whole, too.
Wait a minute, Dave… didn’t Bush come out of seclusion last fall to push the bail-out? Wasn’t it Paulson who framed the bail-out in do or die terms? And didn’t certain Republican leaders (one in tears) beg their party to vote for this?
And yes, the Dems voted for this as well, but they voted for Obama’s too. Just lookin’ for consistency…
Shorter Asswipe: “George Bush Who? never heard of him.”
DG was talking about members of Congress, not Bush or Paulson.
After TARP failed in the House, what did the Democrat leadership do?
Actually, I think DG’s point was that Republicans gave a Republican President everything he wanted.
For the record, I am guilty as charged on the “name calling”. But I don’t see a threat in there. I simple hoped we never meet. Would you ever want to meet a person you despised?
On the “liberal mantra” score, my hatred has nothing whatever to do with political ideology – I literally abhor this guy. Who fucking says shit like “facts are stubborn things”? How incredibly lame!
To the meat of the argument – two stimulus checks ($400 and $1,200) and another $700B TARP to help bank CFO balance the books are not the same thing as this plan. Not all gov’t intervention is equal so how do we know if it’ll work or not.
The issue I had originally is that all these GOP Members of Congress seemed to throw up the spending stop sign at a very interesting time… And yeah the Dem Members rolled over for W too. So what? I didn’t know we were talking about that. Stop changing the subject.
P – Kind of my point. GOP memeber only thought it was OK the spend boat loads of dough on Bush’s BAD ideas, not Obama’s NEW ideas. (They sent stimulus checks twice). Maybe BHO’s plan won’t work either, but I am pretty sure about what has never worked… inaction. That never solved a thing.
DG – I saw it as an implied threat “I hope we never meet (for I will cause you harm),” but not as you put it, “I hope we never meet (for you will have every opportunity to taste that rancid tuna sandwich I had for lunch when I puke it up all over you)”. My misinterpretation, apologies.
Here’s another number: 5
All is well; nothing to see here.
GOP – Gambling with peoples’ lives and livelihood since 1968!
Weird – site duped the comment on it’s own…so I replace it with this: