Press Conference

Onceler said:
So, in your opinion, they should have stuck with the original package, and tried to push that through without any Republican votes whatsoever?

Have you thought about what the defeat of such a bill in the Senate would do to the economy in the short term?
Click to expand...

Start from my original premise to you my brother .. leadership is defining good policy then leading Americans and the opposition to it, not adopting lessor policy as dictated by a few people. Let me add to that, that is most certainly true in an environment where the "leader" is widely popular, has the majority in Congress to pass what he wants, and is in an environment where even the opposition has to be careful how they attack him. They attack Nancy Pelosi instead .. because she's easier.

My question to you is where does it end? Ther are lots of most critical life-changing decisions yet to be made. At what point does good policy trump the needs of a few votes?
 
blackascoal said:
Start from my original premise to you my brother .. leadership is defining good policy then leading Americans and the opposition to it, not adopting lessor policy as dictated by a few people. Let me add to that, that is most certainly true in an environment where the "leader" is widely popular, has the majority in Congress to pass what he wants, and is in an environment where even the opposition has to be careful how they attack him. They attack Nancy Pelosi instead .. because she's easier.

My question to you is where does it end? Ther are lots of most critical life-changing decisions yet to be made. At what point does good policy trump the needs of a few votes?
Click to expand...

Why is she easier? They didn't pick out Harry Reid, but Nancy Pelosi. I think it's because the right views women as witches, to begin with. So they think it's easy to paint her as one.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... says the man that continues calling the securities worthless (or now near worthless). You promote fear and then mock someone else for doing it? quite humorous.
Click to expand...

Markets agree they're mostly worthless. Sometimes there's fear, sometimes there's just reality. Learn the difference. Take it back to the other thread mr. tiny dong, if you want to discuss this one further.
 
blackascoal said:
Start from my original premise to you my brother .. leadership is defining good policy then leading Americans and the opposition to it, not adopting lessor policy as dictated by a few people. Let me add to that, that is most certainly true in an environment where the "leader" is widely popular, has the majority in Congress to pass what he wants, and is in an environment where even the opposition has to be careful how they attack him. They attack Nancy Pelosi instead .. because she's easier.

My question to you is where does it end? Ther are lots of most critical life-changing decisions yet to be made. At what point does good policy trump the needs of a few votes?
Click to expand...

I think the GOP has lost their bearings on this one, and I don't think they're bluffing about a filibuster. They've made a collective decision that this is their way back to power.

Ergo, I see the 3 votes they are trying to woo as necessary for the greater good. A package needs to pass, and needs to pass now; an attempt that fails due to a filibuster will add even more pain to the economy, and is a very dangerous strategy under the circumstances.

They're not revamping the package to try to make it palatable for the GOP; they have made some concessions in the interests of drawing the 3 Republicans they need to avoid filibuster. The only problem I have with the concessions is the cut in state gov't aid, which is something I think will come out of conference in a different form. If it doesn't, they'll need to do it somewhere else.

I don't see a failure of "leadership"; I'm sure you do. I see a party that is willing to bet the future of many Americans on a power play.
 
Darla said:
Well, I know you've worked in politics, so I'm not going to say you are wrong. One thing I felt from the beginning was that Obama made a huge mistake in front-loading it with tax cuts. He should have let those be negotiated in, if that's what he wanted, and he seems to really want them. With much of the wingnut right arguing that these particular tax cuts are "welfare" because they don't go to the right people, maybe they are going to work.

But Obama finally acknowledged that last night.

You know in the end, I really only care that this works. Business is very tough right now, and god help you if you are looking for a job.
Click to expand...

God help us indeed my friend.

Do you know who insisted the plan be fromt-loaded with tax cuts?

Geithner and Larry Summers.

How long have I been talking about both of them?

For those of us who are spiritual .. which is not to be confused with being religious .. these are not happy times, even for those who are financially stable. It's not going to get any better anytime soon and millions more Americans are going to be out of work and out of luck.

Watching the same ol' bullshit political gamesmanship being played out in Washington while people are being ruined .. while we bailout the already rich is mind-boggling.

If Americans had the courage of our counterparts throughout the world we'd be rioting in the streets.

DISCLAMER: I am in no way advocating violence

Just for those who are listening.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
I think the GOP has lost their bearings on this one, and I don't think they're bluffing about a filibuster. They've made a collective decision that this is their way back to power.

Ergo, I see the 3 votes they are trying to woo as necessary for the greater good. A package needs to pass, and needs to pass now; an attempt that fails due to a filibuster will add even more pain to the economy, and is a very dangerous strategy under the circumstances.

They're not revamping the package to try to make it palatable for the GOP; they have made some concessions in the interests of drawing the 3 Republicans they need to avoid filibuster. The only problem I have with the concessions is the cut in state gov't aid, which is something I think will come out of conference in a different form. If it doesn't, they'll need to do it somewhere else.

I don't see a failure of "leadership"; I'm sure you do. I see a party that is willing to bet the future of many Americans on a power play.
Click to expand...

I have much respect for your thoughts my brother in spite of the nuances that seperate us. We sometimes joust with each other because we like to joust, not because of great differences in ideology.

What moderate republicans were waiting on from Obama was leadership .. and when they didn't get it from him, they took it from the right .. then they took it to him.

What is being tested here is the whole notion of bipartisanship and centrist politics. They sound good on paper, but they fail to fight for the best policy for the nation.

How did we get into the financial disaster we see.. bipartisanship .. a lot of it under Clinton, but much of it ubder Reagan while democrats were kissing his ass and calling themselves "Reagan democrats."

How about we listen to people who prove themselves to be wise and adopt good policy that is in the best intrests of a nation teetering of fiannacial disaster.

That's my point .. not what appeases a few people in a disgraced party.
 
DISCLAMER: I am in no way advocating violence
//

A few pokes in the snoots would not be out of order at all I think.
 
Darla said:
Why is she easier? They didn't pick out Harry Reid, but Nancy Pelosi. I think it's because the right views women as witches, to begin with. So they think it's easy to paint her as one.
Click to expand...

And you would be absolutely right again .. but notice that we get no pushback on that from womens' groups, Hillary Clinton, or much of anybody on the so-called left. As you correctly point out the obvious sexism of the right, I think it is equally important to consider the weakness of the left.

They are right .. it is easier for them to attack Pelosi even when they should be attacking Obambi or Reid.
 
blackascoal said:
And you would be absolutely right again .. but notice that we get no pushback on that from womens' groups, Hillary Clinton, or much of anybody on the so-called left. As you correctly point out the obvious sexism of the right, I think it is equally important to consider the weakness of the left.
Click to expand...

bull.

look at what the left did to Sarah Palin.
 
blackascoal said:
I have much respect for your thoughts my brother in spite of the nuances that seperate us. We sometimes joust with each other because we like to joust, not because of great differences in ideology.

What moderate republicans were waiting on from Obama was leadership .. and when they didn't get it from him, they took it from the right .. then they took it to him.

What is being tested here is the whole notion of bipartisanship and centrist politics. They sound good on paper, but they fail to fight for the best policy for the nation.

How did we get into the financial disaster we see.. bipartisanship .. a lot of it under Clinton, but much of it ubder Reagan while democrats were kissing his ass and calling themselves "Reagan democrats."

How about we listen to people who prove themselves to be wise and adopt good policy that is in the best intrests of a nation teetering of fiannacial disaster.

That's my point .. not what appeases a few people in a disgraced party.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't disagree with much of this, although my views are such that many often call them centrist. While I agree that spending - and loads of it - is absolutely necessary right now - I was hoping the package would also have tax cuts, and have no issues with the tax cuts that it has right now. I am of the school of thought that targeted tax cuts, including those which incent small businesses to hire & keep jobs in America - work.

I'm surprised by the GOP on so many levels with this one. I thought the moderates would be along for the ride regardless on this, simply because it's the first major piece of legislation in a popular President's admin, and is so vital, regardless of its form. Maybe that's naive, but I think what they have done here is fairly unprecedented as far as new admins go; I can't think of another instance where a new President got absolutely no honeymoon.

Beyond that, I'm surprised at where they wanted to cut the package. State & local aid? School construction? I don't get it. I can see them going after the global warming/arts stuff, and some pet projects, but what they targeted is insane.

I'm also kind of shocked at the political risk they are taking. By taking such a unified, definitive stand on something so early, and that will be so measurable, they are putting their party's political future on the precipice. If the economy rebounds at all in the next year, they could easily be relegated to minority status for decades.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. An appeal to "practical considerations" and electoral success is how the right wing gatekeepers get the base to give up their strongly held beliefs as well. The fascist center is where it's at.

Two parties my ass.
Click to expand...

Once the Democratic and Republican parties were once the same party, the Democratic/Republican Party. Thomas Jefferson belonged to it, but their alliance didm't last and they seperated.

They've simply come full circle and have again become the same party.
 
They picked Pelosi because, as far as I understand it, she wrote the bill.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/did_obama_author_the_stimulus.html

Despite the superficial similarities between the two plans, it is a big stretch for Obama to claim that his proposal "formed the basis" for the package that eventually passed. There were many different plans floating around. According to contemporaneous news reports, the final package was hammered out in negotiations between the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), with some input from Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NA).
Click to expand...

Saying it is because of "witches" is fishing for "yeah rights!" from partisan hacks. It's possible she deserves criticism because she deserves it, not because she's "wimmin"...
 
Onceler said:
Well, I don't disagree with much of this, although my views are such that many often call them centrist. While I agree that spending - and loads of it - is absolutely necessary right now - I was hoping the package would also have tax cuts, and have no issues with the tax cuts that it has right now. I am of the school of thought that targeted tax cuts, including those which incent small businesses to hire & keep jobs in America - work.

I'm surprised by the GOP on so many levels with this one. I thought the moderates would be along for the ride regardless on this, simply because it's the first major piece of legislation in a popular President's admin, and is so vital, regardless of its form. Maybe that's naive, but I think what they have done here is fairly unprecedented as far as new admins go; I can't think of another instance where a new President got absolutely no honeymoon.

Beyond that, I'm surprised at where they wanted to cut the package. State & local aid? School construction? I don't get it. I can see them going after the global warming/arts stuff, and some pet projects, but what they targeted is insane.

I'm also kind of shocked at the political risk they are taking. By taking such a unified, definitive stand on something so early, and that will be so measurable, they are putting their party's political future on the precipice. If the economy rebounds at all in the next year, they could easily be relegated to minority status for decades.
Click to expand...

Did Clinton get a honeymoon from the Republicans?
 
Bush got no "honeymoon" either. I don't remember one with Clinton. But I may be wrong I was in the Navy and sometimes out of the loop then. Was there one with HW Bush? I can't imagine... :dunno:
 
Onceler said:
Well, I don't disagree with much of this, although my views are such that many often call them centrist. While I agree that spending - and loads of it - is absolutely necessary right now - I was hoping the package would also have tax cuts, and have no issues with the tax cuts that it has right now. I am of the school of thought that targeted tax cuts, including those which incent small businesses to hire & keep jobs in America - work.

I'm surprised by the GOP on so many levels with this one. I thought the moderates would be along for the ride regardless on this, simply because it's the first major piece of legislation in a popular President's admin, and is so vital, regardless of its form. Maybe that's naive, but I think what they have done here is fairly unprecedented as far as new admins go; I can't think of another instance where a new President got absolutely no honeymoon.

Beyond that, I'm surprised at where they wanted to cut the package. State & local aid? School construction? I don't get it. I can see them going after the global warming/arts stuff, and some pet projects, but what they targeted is insane.

I'm also kind of shocked at the political risk they are taking. By taking such a unified, definitive stand on something so early, and that will be so measurable, they are putting their party's political future on the precipice. If the economy rebounds at all in the next year, they could easily be relegated to minority status for decades.
Click to expand...

The only thing that prevents their total fall from grace is Obama and the democrats themselves. By insisting on the idiocy of bipartisanship and contin ually trying to make republicans relevent and insisting on the foolish notion of "changing how Washington works", the Democratic Party, as is usual, will prevent republicans from facing that disaster.

Tax cuts are, and has always been, a mirage, a placebo that averts adopting good policy. A cut in payroll taxes is the best way to cut taxes, but that still does not address the needs of the ever-growing ranks of people who aren't on anyone's payroll.

Bipartisanship is no substitute for good policy.

The package should include some tax cuts, but far less than 40% of the overall. How many more lessons do we need before we recognize this truth?
 
Damocles said:
They picked Pelosi because, as far as I understand it, she wrote the bill.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/did_obama_author_the_stimulus.html



Saying it is because of "witches" is fishing for "yeah rights!" from partisan hacks. It's possible she deserves criticism because she deserves it, not because she's "wimmin"...
Click to expand...

First of all, didn't the white house write most of this bill? Didn't Obama just say last night that "I" put the tax cuts in up front, and maybe "I" shouldn't have? But this bill mostly has what "I" wanted in it?

And right there it states that Pelosi was in negotiations with Reid.

They pinned this bill on her, as if she wrote it. I think it was Jane Hamsher and Digby who wrote a lot about this last week. That the white house (basically, emmanual) and Reid pinned the whole thing on Pelosi.

Actually, bac is right, the democrats had a lot to do with this too. The right has always jumped on any opportunity to paint Pelosi as the big scary mommy figure that right wingers are so frightened of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top