Keukasmallie Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The party in power controls bipartisanship since they have the votes to pass legislation without the other folks involvement. If the party in power decides it wants the other party to support some of the legislation under consideration, it need only include some things the minority party wants in the legislation to get additional votes. On the other hand, it is much easier to whine about lack of bipartisan support than to actually build it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The party in power controls bipartisanship since they have the votes to pass legislation without the other folks involvement. If the party in power decides it wants the other party to support some of the legislation under consideration, it need only include some things the minority party wants in the legislation to get additional votes. On the other hand, it is much easier to whine about lack of bipartisan support than to actually build it..... You want transparency? They should have it where every single spending item has to stand on its own merit. Like that will ever happen. How many in this country will actually read that 693 page bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 The party in power controls bipartisanship since they have the votes to pass legislation without the other folks involvement. If the party in power decides it wants the other party to support some of the legislation under consideration, it need only include some things the minority party wants in the legislation to get additional votes. On the other hand, it is much easier to whine about lack of bipartisan support than to actually build it..... So, everything that Obama put in the stimulus package that the GOP said had to be in there to get their support, which they then voted "no" on en masse, is the Dems not being bipartisan enough? Tell me, if the administration courted their votes for a week, met with them in the words of a GOP staffer "more times in one week than Bush did in eight years," and they still told him to screw when it was all said and done, then how is that not being absurdly partisan on the part of the GOP. The polls show the American people are behind Obama by a very large majority. The polls show that the American people want this stimulus package. The past election AND recent polls show that the majority of Americans don't trust the GOP with the economy. Yet the GOP votes no on a package with provisions in it that were put in there for them. Your party is so used to owning failure that they are willing to go to the mat for failure. I look forward to the mid-term elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 You want transparency? They should have it where every single spending item has to stand on its own merit. Like that will ever happen. How many in this country will actually read that 693 page bill? Didn't you just post a link to it in a thread you started? Are you saying you linked to it, and continue to deride it, yet you haven't also read it? Are you getting your analysis from Rush, Drudge, or a combination of both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Didn't you just post a link to it in a thread you started? Are you saying you linked to it, and continue to deride it, yet you haven't also read it? Are you getting your analysis from Rush, Drudge, or a combination of both? No I havent read, and probably wont. Did you read it? In the post above you praise it, and yet you didnt read it. Christ!! From what I've read about it in the WSJ and other print, the Package IMO, sucks Donkey rooster!!! Yes. I said Donkey rooster!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 So, everything that Obama put in the stimulus package that the GOP said had to be in there to get their support, which they then voted "no" on en masse, is the Dems not being bipartisan enough? Just curious, and in no way doubting you, but can you point out which parts of the stimulus package the GOP said had to be in there? It would seem like political suicide to ask for something in order to close the deal, get what you're asking for, and then renege on the deal. Which parts did the GOP ask for, and who in the GOP was asking for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Just curious, and in no way doubting you, but can you point out which parts of the stimulus package the GOP said had to be in there? It would seem like political suicide to ask for something in order to close the deal, get what you're asking for, and then renege on the deal. Which parts did the GOP ask for, and who in the GOP was asking for it? Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus (NYT Jan 27th) A bunch is listed in here, along with the stuff that was cut out by the Dems the day of the vote. Not a single member of the GOP voted for this package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmet_hair Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Obama, Visiting G.O.P. Lawmakers, Is Open to Some Compromise on Stimulus (NYT Jan 27th) A bunch is listed in here, along with the stuff that was cut out by the Dems the day of the vote. Not a single member of the GOP voted for this package. Why do some continue to act as if we still believe that the NYT is the unbiased paper of record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 You want transparency? They should have it where every single spending item has to stand on its own merit. Like that will ever happen. How many in this country will actually read that 693 page bill? Actually, they should have a rule that every bill has to deal with only one topic, so that the bills are brief, to the point, and leave no room for pork. A generic "spending" bill can be nothing but pork. It's designed that way. How is "economic stimulus package" going to translate to anything other than "Spend as much money on as much sh-- as we can get away with, because it all stimulates the economy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Actually, they should have a rule that every bill has to deal with only one topic, so that the bills are brief, to the point, and leave no room for pork.A generic "spending" bill can be nothing but pork. It's designed that way. How is "economic stimulus package" going to translate to anything other than "Spend as much money on as much sh-- as we can get away with, because it all stimulates the economy"? Thats what I meant. Thanks for making it clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts