Pro Obama post

[bga1]

Yes it's true. Obama's spokesman stated today that Obama is against the reinstatement of the Fairness doctrine. Excellent. Thank you Mr. President. :)

[Gopher4Life]

Are you sure the guy doesn't have an even more dangerous alternative in mind? Never under-estimate this Obama fellow. He definitley has an agenda.

[Schnoodler]

I think you can expect something similar with a different name. If presented with a passed bill, do you really expect that Obama would veto it? And then you can thank your beloved Fox news for that.

[MNSnowman]

President Obama said it several times during the campaign.

[bga1]

Are you sure the guy doesn't have an even more dangerous alternative in mind? Never under-estimate this Obama fellow. He definitley has an agenda.

Honestly - I think he's too smart to try it. There would be tremendous backlash. I think he realizes that he gets plenty of political cover from the MSM anyway and that he can currently get almost any bill he wants passed. Under those circumstances he's making a saavy move.

As to Schnood's thought- perhaps he'll try something modified- but it's not to stop Fox News. They are after conservative talk radio which has a huge following: Limbaugh, Hannity, Bennett, Hewitt, Medved and a few others have a lot of clout with conservatives.

[bga1]

President Obama said it several times during the campaign.

Yeah - he said a lot of things, most of which already are out the window. That's why I am so pleased to hear this.

Remember the bi-partisan, uniter thing? That didn't make it past the inauguration.

The sunlight on every bill idea? Gone.

Hope versus fear? Gone.

Change and a new kind of politics? Not the same old Washington? Look at his cabinet- a Clinton reunion of lefties and tax crooks.

Everyone is going to get a tax cut? Now he says tax increases will be part of the strategy of his next budget.

[UpnorthGo4]

Here is another Pro-Obama Quote that I just came across:

Warrent Buffett was on Dateline NBC saying that the U.S. is currently engaged in an economic Pearl Harbor. Talking about President Obama, Buffett said: "You couldn't have anybody better in charge". Buffet went on to say the President Obama listens to his advisors - including Buffett - and often comes up with better ideas.

[Gopher4Life]

>>And then you can thank your beloved Fox news for that.<<

That's not true at all. This misguided, desperate effort is aimed entirely at radio by those who have learned they can't compete.

If the so-called Fairness Doctrine targets untruths on the airways, I'm all for it. If it limits the histrionics and over-the-top rants by several radio hosts, I'm also for it. But if its goal is to silence conservative opinion because the liberal perspective clearly has no equivalent audience, that's censorship and we should all oppse it.

[Schnoodler]

It's funny how the rebublicans can decide not to play and then offer that as a lack of bipartasanship by the dems. they really need to stop their gamesmanship and work work at making an impact. They're transparent. they're doing themselves, their country and their supporters no favors.

the country has closed the door on their type of republicanism. It's time to revisit their foundations and find something useful and productive they can offer the country rather than pouting, taking their ball and going home. soon they will be going home. They are betting on a prolonged recession. They're hope is to make hay out of the country's suffering rather than offer up useful ideas and proposals that have a chance of inclusion. they want to be able to stand up and say I told you so and garner votes from failure rather than make a difference and earn a spot based on a positive impact. Detestable. They will deserve what they get.

regarding the Fairness doctrine. Not every bill will be initiated by Obama's administration. Pelosi and her group, believe in this and at some point it will be presented. It won't have anything to do with obama but I don't see an Obama Veto. And he has the easy out, he didn't propose it, he didn't champion it, it passed and he won't fight it. Expect it.

[bga1]

Here is another Pro-Obama Quote that I just came across:

Warrent Buffett was on Dateline NBC saying that the U.S. is currently engaged in an economic Pearl Harbor. Talking about President Obama, Buffett said: "You couldn't have anybody better in charge". Buffet went on to say the President Obama listens to his advisors - including Buffett - and often comes up with better ideas.

That's a nice reference, Buffett is certainly smart. On the other hand consider how valuable it is to Buffett as an investor to have the ear of the President........He's not going to bit the hand that could feed him - big time. Be cautious.

[bga1]

It's funny how the rebublicans can decide not to play and then offer that as a lack of bipartasanship by the dems. they really need to stop their gamesmanship and work work at making an impact. They're transparent. they're doing themselves, their country and their supporters no favors.

the country has closed the door on their type of republicanism. It's time to revisit their foundations and find something useful and productive they can offer the country rather than pouting, taking their ball and going home. soon they will be going home. They are betting on a prolonged recession. They're hope is to make hay out of the country's suffering rather than offer up useful ideas and proposals that have a chance of inclusion. they want to be able to stand up and say I told you so and garner votes from failure rather than make a difference and earn a spot based on a positive impact. Detestable. They will deserve what they get.

regarding the Fairness doctrine. Not every bill will be initiated by Obama's administration. Pelosi and her group, believe in this and at some point it will be presented. It won't have anything to do with obama but I don't see an Obama Veto. And he has the easy out, he didn't propose it, he didn't champion it, it passed and he won't fight it. Expect it.

Your analysis couldn't be further from the truth. Most Republicans are stakeholders. Own land, own stock, own businesses and pay taxes. No Republican I know has any interest in a prolonged recession in order to regain power. That hits our own pockets.

With regards to the stimuls bill there was no effort to get any more input than three Republicans. Once they had the Three Stooges in their pocket than the R's were closed out from negotiations.
This has been documented. There was no bi-partisanship to this bill whatsoever becasue it was never offered. The Dems will rise or fall off of it.

If we can be prosperous safe and truly free, as the founders intended, I would be happy to see the Dems rule for my lifetime. Right now they imperil all of those ideals with their foolishness.

[Schnoodler]

It's also well documented the republicans came to the table way late. either they're inept or ill meaning. take your pick.

[bga1]

It's also well documented the republicans came to the table way late. either they're inept or ill meaning. take your pick.


Or -third option- perhaps they were taking the time needed to get it right. In fact, that's the right option.

There was never the need to have this done by a certain date - otherwise Obama wouldn't have waited another 3-4 days to sign it. Furthermore if there was a time crunch you would have thought they would have put a substantial portion of the bill into things that happened in a timely fashion. But they didn't. Instead we got an amalgamation of old fashioned leftist, socialist measures many of which will take years to take root and will take forever to erase.

Obama falsely trumped up the urgency of this so that he could do two things: A) freeze the R's out of the process while eliminating public scrutiny and B) make himself all the more the hero on the off chance that this thing actually works. The doctor of hope fear mongered the nation into a socialistic bill.

[Schnoodler]

Here is what was going to happen. Obama's proposal was going to pass in one form or another. That was given. As such they had two choices, try to impact the bill using bi-partisanship as a bargaining chip, or stand on the sidelines as a bunch of nay sayers and make a statement. So between making a difference and making a statement, in a time of great need, they chose to make a statement. they chose posturing over the public well being.

It is quite clear what their intent was. and here's their greater failure, that you ought to be pissed about. this was Obama's attempt at presenting a bi-partisan bill. It was a starting point that was right of the house and senate. They had a chance to move it even furhur towards their liking. Instead, they dug in their heels made their statement by providing an alternative that had a little less than zero chance of success. In the end the bill moved even furthur to the left. This is what you have to thank your republican leaders for.

This will be easy to spin against them as the truth is quite easy to point out as I just did. It's not good for the republican party. It's not good for America. They've been given a mandate by the public to change, and in their first opportunity they failed miserably. i'd be embarassed for your boys if I were you. it's a not a right wing talk show, you don't gain points by being obstinate. It's the nations economy in a crisis, you gain points by making an impact even if you disagree with the larger bill. It's your job as an elected official to make the best impact they can, they made the least. Bad, bad, bad.

[monk10]

I find the irony of accusing of fear mongering while at the same time hanging "socialism" over every policy decision.

I will be entertained for the next four years as much as I was with the defense that Bush wasn't a bottom 10 president.

This break in action is over, please continue the fear mongering.

[bga1]

Really? Saying the word socialism is fear mongering? Is that why Newsweek's cover said that "we are all socialists now"? Socialism is a very real system employed in a lot of countries to varying degrees. What is happening now in this country is socialism. Is it the full nine yards? No. But these are socialistic measures and it is proper to label them that way because it's true. Should we be scared? Sure we probably should becasue it's pretty tough to throw this train in reverse. Once you get half or more of the people feeding at the public trough then you have ciritical mass and it's downhill from there.

So - if calling something what it is- if that's fear mongering.... then I guess you just don't want to be told the truth. Like many other Americans.

[bga1]

Here is what was going to happen. Obama's proposal was going to pass in one form or another. That was given. As such they had two choices, try to impact the bill using bi-partisanship as a bargaining chip, or stand on the sidelines as a bunch of nay sayers and make a statement. So between making a difference and making a statement, in a time of great need, they chose to make a statement. they chose posturing over the public well being.

It is quite clear what their intent was. and here's their greater failure, that you ought to be pissed about. this was Obama's attempt at presenting a bi-partisan bill. It was a starting point that was right of the house and senate. They had a chance to move it even furhur towards their liking. Instead, they dug in their heels made their statement by providing an alternative that had a little less than zero chance of success. In the end the bill moved even furthur to the left. This is what you have to thank your republican leaders for.

This will be easy to spin against them as the truth is quite easy to point out as I just did. It's not good for the republican party. It's not good for America. They've been given a mandate by the public to change, and in their first opportunity they failed miserably. i'd be embarassed for your boys if I were you. it's a not a right wing talk show, you don't gain points by being obstinate. It's the nations economy in a crisis, you gain points by making an impact even if you disagree with the larger bill. It's your job as an elected official to make the best impact they can, they made the least. Bad, bad, bad.

According to all accounts Obama let Congress write the bill. Why? Because he probably knew they would do his bidding for him and he could play the good guy afterwards. He could say: "I had to sign the bill in view of it's urgency" (a crock). He was hoping that this mess would have bi-paritisan blood on it so that he could have his cake and eat it too, but he miscalculated.
The Dems in Congress- less politically smart than Obama- never had any intention of including any R's other than Snowe, Spector and Collins. They were so bent on getting this 40 year list of pet projects taken care of that they were smugly satisfied to collect enough votes to get it to Obama's desk.

But that's great spin by you. Take a bill almost entirely written by Dems, having left the R's out of negotiations. Then have a vote that is entirely Dems save for three. The take and blame the bill which is signed by a Democratic President and blame the Republicans. That's just amazing logic.

[Schnoodler]

It is fear mongering. because it is not socialism. socialism is the collective ownership or state ownership of the means to production. Not wealth redistribution. wealth redistribuition is an american envention to counter the accumulation of wealth and to attempt to counter elitism. It's too take dead cash and employ it by making it available to the movers and shakers of a new generation. fear mongering is calling this process socialism, which it is not. In fact, the rise of most methods of wealth distribution were born out of the great depression, a reaction to seeing the evils of accumlating wealth first hand.

Wealth redistribution as we've had in this country for a hundred years now, (less so now than any point in the last 80 years I might add), is the response to what appeared to be a deficiency in the free market. The capitalistic attempt at an egalitarian (not communism for you red scare hypers)ideal. The American ideal that everyone has an equal chance at success. Which wealth accumulation suppresses. Americans invented this, as a safegaurd to the free enterprise ideal, not as a move towards socialism.

Now the thoughts of a central state owned bank, or the talk of government ownership of various financial markets, that is socialism. i'm not very fond of that.

the only reason the term socialism is used is to elicit fear by tying into our ingrained red scare from our youth. It's to elicit a reation of fear and to reject any idea labled with socialism as bad just because of the lable, not because of the merit. That is the very spirit of fear mongering, and so any use of socialism, that isn't tied directly to the correct use of the term is fear mongering, because it is aimed at achieving a negative reaction and not to productive dialogue.

here's the short wiki:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

And for those scared of the term egalitarian:
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed below, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference.

[Schnoodler]

According to all accounts Obama let Congress write the bill. Why? Because he probably knew they would do his bidding for him and he could play the good guy afterwards. He could say: "I had to sign the bill in view of it's urgency" (a crock). He was hoping that this mess would have bi-paritisan blood on it so that he could have his cake and eat it too, but he miscalculated.
The Dems in Congress- less politically smart than Obama- never had any intention of including any R's other than Snowe, Spector and Collins. They were so bent on getting this 40 year list of pet projects taken care of that they were smugly satisfied to collect enough votes to get it to Obama's desk.

But that's great spin by you. Take a bill almost entirely written by Dems, having left the R's out of negotiations. Then have a vote that is entirely Dems save for three. The take and blame the bill which is signed by a Democratic President and blame the Republicans. That's just amazing logic.


As I said they had two choices, impact the bill the best they could or stand on the sidelines and be a bunch of whiners and do nothing for the american public. which did they do?

[bga1]

As I said they had two choices, impact the bill the best they could or stand on the sidelines and be a bunch of whiners and do nothing for the american public. which did they do?


They attempted to impact the bill by offering alternatives.

If someone asks you to jump off a bridge are you a whiner if you tell them that they shouldn't and you don't want to? Let's do something else is a good answer sometimes. They offered that answer.

But it looks like we agree that a good share of this is a terrible bill. I will say that the speedier infrastructure stuff is fine and that temporary help for the unemployed is fine and some other immediate stuff was fine. They otherwise neglected to address the immediate problem and opted to slam home a partisan bill and the blame goes directly to the people that made it and now the man the signed it into existence. I only hope there is enough immediate stuff to help reduce the short term suffering because it si likely the long term has been mortgaged to do this.

[bga1]

It is fear mongering. because it is not socialism. socialism is the collective ownership or state ownership of the means to production. Not wealth redistribution. wealth redistribuition is an american envention to counter the accumulation of wealth and to attempt to counter elitism. It's too take dead cash and employ it by making it available to the movers and shakers of a new generation. fear mongering is calling this process socialism, which it is not. In fact, the rise of most methods of wealth distribution were born out of the great depression, a reaction to seeing the evils of accumlating wealth first hand.

Wealth redistribution as we've had in this country for a hundred years now, (less so now than any point in the last 80 years I might add), is the response to what appeared to be a deficiency in the free market. The capitalistic attempt at an egalitarian (not communism for you red scare hypers)ideal. The American ideal that everyone has an equal chance at success. Which wealth accumulation suppresses. Americans invented this, as a safegaurd to the free enterprise ideal, not as a move towards socialism.

Now the thoughts of a central state owned bank, or the talk of government ownership of various financial markets, that is socialism. i'm not very fond of that.

the only reason the term socialism is used is to elicit fear by tying into our ingrained red scare from our youth. It's to elicit a reation of fear and to reject any idea labled with socialism as bad just because of the lable, not because of the merit. That is the very spirit of fear mongering, and so any use of socialism, that isn't tied directly to the correct use of the term is fear mongering, because it is aimed at achieving a negative reaction and not to productive dialogue.

here's the short wiki:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

And for those scared of the term egalitarian:
Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed below, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference.

So- that's a long winded way of saying that the goverment operates to redistribute wealth in a manner it deems fair. This of course is exactly what Obama said he wished to do and has now taken the first steps toward with this bill.

You generally get socialism by degrees, slowly. Just as it has evolved in Europe. Nobody denies that much of Europe has a form of socialism. We've had a little of it for a long time. Now we are going to have a lot more of it.

The more that the government engineers who gets the money, essentially removing it from the wealthy to give it to the non-wealthy, then the more socialism you have.

[Schnoodler]

No that's the wrong analogy. they have a duty to affect legislation. It's not there job to provide commentary from the sidelines. they only had two options. Affect the bill in the most positive way they could or do nothing. offering alternatives was not an option open to them. There choices were simple work to change the bill or do nothing. Offering an alternative that had no hope off replacing the bill is posturing. It is not affecting legislation. It is making a choice to not impact the bill likely to pass.

there was no third choice. That was clear from the beginning. what did they do? Impact the bill, or posture on the sidelines? It's a simple question. In fact as there are only two choices you can answer a more simple question. Did they impact this bill?

[Schnoodler]

So- that's a long winded way of saying that the goverment operates to redistribute wealth in a manner it deems fair. This of course is exactly what Obama said he wished to do and has now taken the first steps toward with this bill.

You generally get socialism by degrees, slowly. Just as it has evolved in Europe. Nobody denies that much of Europe has a form of socialism. We've had a little of it for a long time. Now we are going to have a lot more of it.

The more that the government engineers who gets the money, essentially removing it from the wealthy to give it to the non-wealthy, then the more socialism you have.


As i've said there is less wealth distribution than ever in the last 80 years. by your argument we are less socialist than we were. You can't redefine socialism in hopes of claiming we're socialistic.
you can't even paint wealth redistribution as socialistic with any historical context. It's as american as any economic invention has ever been. You're right wing crap of equating wealth distribution to welfare is as all the rest of the spew fear mongering and so far from what it really means as to make the talk show arguments laughable if you have any understanding of the basis of these ideals.

this is why the republican party is about to suffer a slow painful death. they've redefined so much of the dialogue there's no longer any basis for their arguments. they've lost the connection to their platform, and cornerstones of ideals. There was a time when the republican party understood the concepts this country was founded on. They could actually derive their policy out of those ideals. They actually understood the concepts like wealth redistribuition and didn't equate it with sensationalism. The debate was about how best to achieve it and the appropriate levels of taxation to best accomplish it. Once upon a time they understood the difference between capitalism and free market, they understood they weren't the same thing, and they rejected laissez faire economics as anti american. They actually knew that this distinction was a cornerstone of the great experiment. And they embraced it. Before they sold out to corporate greed, before they they sold their souls to the devil disguised as christain conservativism they actually were the champions of the great expirement at one time. It's a sad, sad, fall.

[monk10]

Really? Saying the word socialism is fear mongering? Is that why Newsweek's cover said that "we are all socialists now"? Socialism is a very real system employed in a lot of countries to varying degrees. What is happening now in this country is socialism. Is it the full nine yards? No. But these are socialistic measures and it is proper to label them that way because it's true. Should we be scared? Sure we probably should becasue it's pretty tough to throw this train in reverse. Once you get half or more of the people feeding at the public trough then you have ciritical mass and it's downhill from there.

So - if calling something what it is- if that's fear mongering.... then I guess you just don't want to be told the truth. Like many other Americans.

So after reading a couple more posts would you like to correct this one?

[tikited]

So- that's a long winded way of saying that the goverment operates to redistribute wealth in a manner it deems fair. This of course is exactly what Obama said he wished to do and has now taken the first steps toward with this bill.

You generally get socialism by degrees, slowly. Just as it has evolved in Europe. Nobody denies that much of Europe has a form of socialism. We've had a little of it for a long time. Now we are going to have a lot more of it.

The more that the government engineers who gets the money, essentially removing it from the wealthy to give it to the non-wealthy, then the more socialism you have.

When times are tough the rich have to pay--it's been that way before and will continue to be that way in the future. Once the middle-class has been bleeded dry, what comes next? You can't bleed the poor as they have no money to take. You already took from the middle-class.. Who's next? Who can afford to help in a time of need? The rich. Get used to it-right or wrong.

[bga1]

So after reading a couple more posts would you like to correct this one?

Your post? Yes I would like to correct your post. :)

[UpnorthGo4]

Originally Posted by bga1
So- that's a long winded way of saying that the goverment operates to redistribute wealth in a manner it deems fair. This of course is exactly what Obama said he wished to do and has now taken the first steps toward with this bill.

You generally get socialism by degrees, slowly. Just as it has evolved in Europe. Nobody denies that much of Europe has a form of socialism. We've had a little of it for a long time. Now we are going to have a lot more of it.

The more that the government engineers who gets the money, essentially removing it from the wealthy to give it to the non-wealthy, then the more socialism you have.


As the following excerpts show, the Newsweek cover story is in agreement with bga1:

"Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French."

"Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew."

You are very perceptive, bga1. However, what the Newsweek article neglected to say is that America's leftward shift toward European style Socialism is inevitable. No matter how much conservative Republicans whine about it, they are not going to be able to stop the growth of entitlement spending, or the expectations of a growing percentage of U.S. citizens that government should bail them out when things go badly for them. If the Republican Party doesn't get on board with this reality, it will become increasingly irrelevant.

[bigtenchamps1899]

please! obama has knows that he can come out against it because he doesn't have a say in it. congress is pressing this issue, and if the president vetos it, the congress has the votes to override him (or at least, they would only pass a fairness doctrine if they had the votes to override the president).

it is the safest thing for obama to come out against it, that way he can wash his hands of the situation when the congress overrides him. just because he says he's against it doesn't mean he IS against it. these are politicians we are talking about.

[monk10]

Your post? Yes I would like to correct your post. :)

Let's hope you get something right in this thread then :).

[bga1]

Originally Posted by bga1
So- that's a long winded way of saying that the goverment operates to redistribute wealth in a manner it deems fair. This of course is exactly what Obama said he wished to do and has now taken the first steps toward with this bill.

You generally get socialism by degrees, slowly. Just as it has evolved in Europe. Nobody denies that much of Europe has a form of socialism. We've had a little of it for a long time. Now we are going to have a lot more of it.

The more that the government engineers who gets the money, essentially removing it from the wealthy to give it to the non-wealthy, then the more socialism you have.


As the following excerpts show, the Newsweek cover story is in agreement with bga1:

"Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French."

"Polls show that Americans don't trust government and still don't want big government. They do, however, want what government delivers, like health care and national defense and, now, protections from banking and housing failure. During the roughly three decades since Reagan made big government the enemy and "liberal" an epithet, government did not shrink. It grew."

You are very perceptive, bga1. However, what the Newsweek article neglected to say is that America's leftward shift toward European style Socialism is inevitable. No matter how much conservative Republicans whine about it, they are not going to be able to stop the growth of entitlement spending, or the expectations of a growing percentage of U.S. citizens that government should bail them out when things go badly for them. If the Republican Party doesn't get on board with this reality, it will become increasingly irrelevant.


G4 UPNorth-
As much as I hate to say it I am afraid you are right. The fact that approximately 50% pay almost none of the taxes virtually locks in entitlements for the long term. People will not vote themselves away from the trough. Schnoodler is a student of economics and a pure theorist (and a very learned one). To him either you have pure socialism or you don't- that's theory. In real life that's just not the way things are.

I think Republicans have to be resigned to having less power and being a louder voice. We shouldn't be seeking power anyway - we should be seeking an outcome. So I think Republicans need to continue to voice conscience and principal come what may.

[Gopher4Life]

Schnoodler,

>>...they had two choices, impact the bill the best they could or stand on the sidelines and be a bunch of whiners and do nothing for the american public. which did they do?<<

That's idiotic at best and an outright misrepresentation at worst. Obama tried the same rhetoric. "Our bill or no bill at all" is a false choice. There was ample time to clean up this bill before rushing it through...and I think we all know why this foul-smelling pork package was rushed along.

It's insane to argue that we are not on a slippery slope toward European socialism. That shouldn't even be in question any longer. The evidence seems to grow by the month. What worries me even more is that so many Americans don't care and so many others actually want it.

[Schnoodler]

Dead wrong G4. The bill went through. They had an obligation to impact it. They chose not to. Much like standing a paramedic on the side of the road watching an accident victim die and doing nothing exclaiming "it's not my accident" thinking you're absolved of duty. Their duty is clear. To affect outcome and make an impact. They chose not to.

No matter how stinky this bill might be, and I'm not saying it is. And no matter what pace and how recklessly it moved, and I'm not saying it did. This was the bill they had to work with, and this was the time frame that was offered and expected. In the context of the republicans actions it matters not what they had to work with, only what they chose to do with the opportunity afforded them. And they chose to do nothing but stand on the sidelines and blow rasperries and bellyache. Meanwhile they left no republican impact on this bill. irresponsible. there is no defense for their actions.

You can cry and moan all you like about how little you like this bill. but the truth remains that you're party chose not to participate. They chose to posture rather than impact. you can try to deflect all you want but it doesn't absolve the republicans of their duty to perform their jobs.

[Gopher4Life]

That's such a foolish pile, Schnoodler.

The GOP cared enough for America and its future to want to replace the Pelosi/Reid effort with a bill that would actually work while cutting out the expensive pork. The Dems would have none of it, so the GOP was shut out and the desire for bipartisanship was exposed as a sham.

[bga1]

Dead wrong G4. The bill went through. They had an obligation to impact it. They chose not to. Much like standing a paramedic on the side of the road watching an accident victim die and doing nothing exclaiming "it's not my accident" thinking you're absolved of duty. Their duty is clear. To affect outcome and make an impact. They chose not to.

No matter how stinky this bill might be, and I'm not saying it is. And no matter what pace and how recklessly it moved, and I'm not saying it did. This was the bill they had to work with, and this was the time frame that was offered and expected. In the context of the republicans actions it matters not what they had to work with, only what they chose to do with the opportunity afforded them. And they chose to do nothing but stand on the sidelines and blow rasperries and bellyache. Meanwhile they left no republican impact on this bill. irresponsible. there is no defense for their actions.

You can cry and moan all you like about how little you like this bill. but the truth remains that you're party chose not to participate. They chose to posture rather than impact. you can try to deflect all you want but it doesn't absolve the republicans of their duty to perform their jobs.

You say in the time frame given. can you tell me what it is the stimulus package is addressing this week other than causing the markets to tank further? It was so urgent that Obama took 4 days to sign it. It was so necessary to be timely that there's very little early stimulus in there. The Dems could have and should have given the GOP another week. The problem was that they knew this bill had to be done in the dark. It doesn't pass the smell test.