Is this really the Associated Press lede that the Republicans wanted?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a swift victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration's plan to revive a badly ailing economy. The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's frequent pleas for bipartisan support.Zero is sometimes a big number. If the stimulus bill had passed the House today with a handful of Republican votes -- six or eight or twelve or twenty -- the party would presumably have gotten its point across about the merit of the legislation. But the bill didn't get a handful of Republican votes -- it got none at all. You'd think there would be one Republican out of 178 who found his way to a yes vote based on the particular cadences of his political philosophy and the electoral politics of his district. But there was not.
The question is whether a result like this could have came about by accident -- or whether it must have been engineered by the party leadership. I'm not sure that the answer to that is obvious. The House does not cast a secret ballot. It seems plausible that there were a dozen or so Republicans who were on the fence, waiting to see how their colleagues would vote --- and when those votes started to come in unanimously against the bill, nobody wanted to be the ugly ducking.
But does it do the party as a whole any good for having opposed the bill unanimously? With headlines like the one in the Associated Press, it's hard to imagine so. Their unanimous opposition reads as an emphatic rejection of the President and the President's attempts at "bipartisanship". And the President is very popular right now.
But -- the base is happy, or at least reasonably so. Rush Limbaugh will be singing John Boehner's praises tomorrow. I'm just not sure what message this sends to the other 78 percent of the country.
142 comments
Hopefully Obama will learn his lesson, and forge on without these dinosaurs.
I'm just not sure what message this sends to the other 78 percent of the country.
The message is: "WE ARE THE BIGGEST. LOSERS. EVER. AMEN."
So this is bipartisanship: No one agrees on anything, but everyone is happy to play their role. Obama looks like he is reaching across the aisle. The Republican caucus, with few moderates left, fires up the base. And the Dems in Congress get to write their own bill without obstruction from the other side. Everybody wins.
The only losers seem to be the American public, who are getting a too-small stimulus package that doesn't put enough money in play soon enough.
I wonder what Obama think of this. It is pretty striking.
To take this post 100% seriously, one would have to assume that Republicans were both evil (putting game theoretic considerations ahead of what's best for the country) and stupid (executing the game theory incompetently).
Is it really that implausible that the party of small[er] government would stand up en masse against a trillion-dollar spending spree? And are the differences in party fortune between 0% GOP support and >0% at all comparable to the difference between bankrupting the country and not bankrupting it?
My call?
Rush rants tomorrow about the drive-by mainstream MSM media and how they're all sucking on Obama's dick and why can't they see that 178 Republicans (oh, and 10 Democrats) can't be wrong EVER.
Though the numbers on THIS side of the aisle are striking, too. Only 13 were out of step? (10 no's, 3 abstentions.) Well, I'm not quite ready to give Nancy credit just yet, but damn gurl.
I'm calling the (okay, I haven't followed it, but I'm 95% sure this will happen) attempt for McConnell to cockblock it in the Senate a failure - Impy and perhaps Gregg are probably going to break ranks on cloture. Voinovich is not going to give a damn since he owes no one nothing (he's got less than two years left), so I'd count him as likely.
In the unlikely event that Franken gets sworn in before it gets to the floor, it's almost a certain thing that a filibuster fails, I think.
@ Matt Bruce: Is it really that implausible that the party of small[er] government would stand up en masse against a trillion-dollar spending spree?
Oh yeah? And just where has this mythical "party of small(er) government" been hiding for the past eight years?
As cranky contrarians, R's think they can appeal to their business-good, government-bad base by opposing the stimulus package. They may be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I have no doubt that the bill is insufficient to fully address the issues, but R's are looking like so many dottoheads now. With luck, the middle ground will shift toward Obama now.
Matt Bruce, the idea that the Republicans are the party of "small[er] government" is a complete and contemptible lie on every level. They completely obliterated our rights to privacy, suspended habeus corpus, and under Reagan and GW Bush, ballooned the national debt to Kingdom Come for no good reason and to no good effects. And you know it. And worse yet, they've precipitated a near-depression, which actually necessitates even more borrowing, which under ordinary circumstances would be a horrible idea. But the thing is, it's better to borrow to spend on productive projects in the U.S. than to borrow for a murderous, imperialist war in Iraq and to line the pockets of the richest.
But getting back to the House vote, what this vote means to me is that the Republicans in the House are completely irrelevant to the legislative process. Obama will continue meeting and being polite with them, but won't be giving them anything, and the Democrats in the House will happily pass their agenda by themselves. It's only in the Senate where some Republicans will be relevant to the legislative process.
Taft, the middle ground has been with Obama for quite a while now.
Groucho Marx: From the 1932 movie "Horse Feathers"
"I'm Against it"
Music and Lyrics By: Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby
Song Lyrics:
[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.
[chorus] He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!
[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!
To take this post 100% seriously, one would have to assume that Republicans were both evil (putting game theoretic considerations ahead of what's best for the country) and stupid (executing the game theory incompetently).
Is this really that implausible?
I think you've already answered your own question.
I could've sworn that you already noted that a crack in the armor of this legislation was the fact that it become the Democratic Stimulus package rather than the Obama Stimulus Package. It was a vulnerability that the Republicans used to their advantage and they didn't lose anything by doing so.
This unanimous vote against is more important in symbolic terms than anything else. The bill is going to be passed; that's almost certain now and it would have been whether the Republicans had crossed over in favor or not.
But the identity crisis of the Republican party is deep and I honestly think the leadership saw that they could have their cake and eat it too; they can have Eric Cantor and other representatives re-orient the party towards fiscal conservatism by having a unanimous vote against the legislation that would hearten conservatives, while painting the Democrats as working against Obama's call for change; thus, insulating or at least dampening the whiplash from his suppporters.
Then, after all that, the legislation would still pass. This was a win-win situation. A re-energized base, a re-orientation towards fiscal conservatism, and a vote that re-emphasizes the difference between the two parties. Fine political theater.
It really should be noted that there were real objective reasons for going against this legislation - it wasn't all partisan rumbling - even some Democrats voted against it.
"even some Democrats voted against it"
"Some"? Why not just say 11, out of 257 Democrats?
All politics being local, there is a simple but effective way for the Prez to get a few Republicans on board for the next stimulus package (and yes, there will be a need for several more).
Simply announce that it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone in congress who votes against spending the money must obviously not want to see any of it spent in his or her district.
Matt, as a matter of ideology or principle, it's not hard to understand why the GOP would oppose this bill.
As a matter of politics, it's harder to understand why the Republicans are doing what they're doing. It seems unlikely that this will succeed in turning public support against Obama. For one thing, he has a lot more public support. Also, his overtures to the Republicans have been so effusive that no one can blame him for not trying — and so the Republicans will be blamed, accused of obstructionism and callousness toward the plight of the middle and lower classes.
Yet the Republicans have spurned Obama. Why do this — unanimously, no less — during a severe economic crisis? Do Republicans forget what Hoover did for Republican dominance in Washington? Is a crisis really the right time to be this partisan, especially when the party's influence is nose-diving?
Although there is a lot of criticism of Obama for even bothering with the Republicans when their response seemed obvious, I think he's set them up so that he wins no matter how they respond. If they support the stimulus, his bipartisan gambit succeeds. Hail Caesar. If the Republicans resist, they marginalize themselves further and lose even more seats in 2010.
It's not that the Republicans' response is surprising, Matt. It's just that it's interesting to see which trapdoor they're choosing.
"Hopefully Obama will learn his lesson, and forge on without these dinosaurs."
Hell yeah!
Stop playing nice with people who see you as the enemy and not fellow Americans.
This was a no-win vote for the Rs. If the stimulus works over the next 2-3 years, Obama gets the credit. No votes may hurt a few Rs in the mid-West, but not many. If the stimulus doesn't save the economy -- and most Rs don't think it will -- the Rs get to run in in 2010 and 2012 as strong opponents of wasteful govt spending, which is what most of their constituents want them to do. R opposition to the stimulus package may not make economic sense, but the politics is clear, no?
No tax cuts for the rich? Fuhgedaboutit! They've already raided the pantry to the top of their bent, but they don't see that their day is over.
Obama even gave up a few things they pointed out and they still are playing fanboy to Limbaugh and Coulter.
I agree with the many above who point out that this is a losing strategy. But let's encourage it, all hail the even better situation in 2010, with the economy recovering and only reasonable Republicans able to hold on to their constituents!
wv: lower, as in expectations
BTW, if any insomniac out there is a tennis fan, check out the Federer Roddick match in Australia. Roddick is doing a little better in the second set, but unlikely to prevail - Federer playing at his beautiful best again.
sigh, forgot the link, and they're into the third set:
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/index.html
Let's hope Obama learns his lesson, which is that trying to accommodate the Republicans is a useless exercise. There were far too many concessions in that bill. to begin with.
Susan, who gives a flyin' fuck about Australian tennis? Can't you find a sports site anywhere on the Internet? Why here?
GOP welcomes the President's attempts at bipartisanship, gains some concessions, votes unanimously against it anyway, AND IT PASSES ANYWAY. They clearly haven't gotten used to being the minority party without the White House yet.
Is there anything else they could do to get themselves ignored?
Grinder, in response to your pointless rudeness, it's world tennis, and I thought someone might be interested in the not so small hours of the night. My comments were short and easily skipped, and preceded by one that responded to Nate's article.
I guess noone wanted to cast the first Republican "yea". Leadership was a factor, too. And the Republican House delegation is pretty homogenic, ideologically. There are almost no moderates left.
Rush Limbaugh is really the embodiement of the House Republicans. By going all-in, the Republicans must be hoping now that Obama fails. Because if the stimulus plan is successful, the Republican House members lose the economy as a campaign argument. And we will find ourselves back in pre-Reagan times with a veto-proof Democratic majority.
What does it matter? The scum are flooding the airwaves, the MSM are pushing the meme that the stimulus is full of pork, Pelosi is a witch and that it's incumbent upon President Obama and the Dms to be more bipartisan. It doesn't help that the likes of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd aren't hammering Bonerman and Cantor. Thay need to step up NOW.
"Simply announce that it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone in congress who votes against spending the money must obviously not want to see any of it spent in his or her district."
Oh, yeah, that is what "change" is about?
Threatening districts into doing what you want.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
La, La, la, la, la.
While there are reasonable concerns about the stimulus package, the wholesale revolt by Congressional Republicans doesn't suggest individual concern. In the face of such party politics, as we elected him to do, Obama is moving forward, even without Republican "stimulus" (read:big business). Newsflash: We have a new paradigm of investment IN America not investment FOR investors. In this and other issues, Republicans might need to realize if they stick to their guns (pun intended), they may be left behind.
Why not have a daily feature on what day Rays242 is taken into custody by the secret service.
Why can`t you ban this idiot and if this isn`t possible remove his comments from here, they are just offensive on so many levels.
Nate, could you turn the comment moderation back on please?
Now, as far as Matt's suggestion earlier, I'm divided equally between evil and stupid. Maybe a mix of both, not quite sociopathic but a little out there, not quite idiots but a little dim?
Listen, if you were opposed to big spending, you wouldn't have pushed that 700 BILLION DOLLAR bailout for the banks with no strings on us. That was Bush's doing, remember? You also would not have gone into Iraq, which costs $$$ and lives, and there's no Saddam or WMD or anything there (you invaded for the oil but you blew it) to fight for anymore.
The GOP IS the party of massive deficits. You spend insane amounts of money on failed foreign ventures and your cronies. You just have issues about spending it on poor and middle class people.
Which makes you a little evil and a little dense, because robbing the poor to feed the rich is evil and trying to cover it up with a 'we're anti-spending' after dumping 700 billion dollars on the banking industry and getting us quagmired in Iraq makes you a little dense.
Maybe you are hoping that most Americans will be even greedier and dumber, which we would have to be to fall for such bullshit.
Joel,
rays/Mule Rider is Nate's alter ego. he can't get rid of him because he IS him.
rays242,
I know that you're a Biden fan, but I fear you have to wait a little bit more.
I had always wondered if that was true or not about the Secret Service or FBI or somebody at least showing up at your door for threatening an elected official or not. I guess maybe it must be a matter of believability? I mean, think about it: The internet has a higher than average number of nutjobs, since people think it's anonymous and they can thus be crazier here than they would be in public. Politics has become seriously polarized, and right-wing extremism is at an all time high according to groups like Southern Poverty Law Center. It just stands to reason there would be alot of threats made over the internet to alot of different public officials-and almost all of them would be complete bullshit. These guys are most likely Rush Limbaugh fans that want their chance to sound like their hero and maybe go a little further. That, teenagers and younger kids doing it primarily because they think they,re being funny, and it makes us adults freak the fuck out, and freaking out the adults is alot of fun for most kids. Some of them are probably just bored and don't take the stuff on forum posts seriously, and wonder why we do.
Given all that, it seems like ti would be a massive waste of time for the Secret Service to investigate every 12 year old kid in America that,s decided to troll a forum with death threats against a high profile politician, especially if they are vaguely worded ones and not even direct threats. He hasn't said "I will do this" He's said, "what are the odds". The first is illegal, the second isn't.
Also, by hurling threats of "The FBI is coming to get you!" we kinda look a little impotent. It's essentially the same thing as "I'm gonna tell my mom!" Did that really stop anyone from beating you up when you were little? It's not gonna help much now, either.
Which means you either have to ignore him to death or do something to shut his ass down yourself. The first only works until some idiot breaks the ignore, and that usually takes a whole twenty minutes. The second would work if 1) the software allowed it and 2) the admins were willing. If 1 is yes then 2 must be no, or else 1 is no and then 2 is either yes or no.
Either way, we're stuck with it.
I don't think the FBI will be knocking on little Timmy's bedroom door anytime soon. And everytime you threaten him, he's just gonna post more as a way of saying fuck off, go tell your mom, I don't care.
As always, DNFTT
Do Not Feed The Trolls
Matt Bruce and his ilk are the reason why Republicans are such losers. Now rightfully out of power, they continue with their "less government, lower taxes" mantra, as if the last 8 years never happened. And the MSM dutifully reports this idiocy as some sort of responsible opposition, while 75% of the country sees if for what it is, hoping for failure so that they can reclaim some relevance in 2010.
So yes, Republicans are that evil and they are that stupid.
I am an Obama Democrat, but I agree with the Republicans on this one. Our guys keep talking about the great things in this bill, and if you bring up the third of it that is bullshit and has nothing to do with economic stimulation, they dismiss it.
The truth is we larded this bill with over $300B worth of crap that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and cannot in any way be considered an investment.
Make it $800B worth of infrastructure and lower middle class tax cuts, PERIOD. All this other crap is a social justice wish list, not economic stimulation.
I hope the Senate holds firm and revises all that other crap right the hell out. The price tag is fine with me, in fact double it and I won't care, the content of what we are calling "economic stimulus" is and should be offensive to any thinking person. It is a political LIE, and I am sick of political liars.
The fact that a Congressman who criticizes Limbaugh has to publicly apologize to his constituents tells you all you need to know about the sorry state of the GOP in the House. They really only represent the base, the 20% of the country that hasn't voted for a Dem since Gov. Wallace and wish Archie Bunker's refreshing honesty was still on the air. They don't hear anything based on logic, rather than self-congratulatory filters that reinforce their own world view. They are clustered in communities that share their values - cocoons of conservativism, as it were - that give them collectively the power to elect local officials and Congressmen in numbers disproprotionate to their true size, but can't break out in a national or state wide election right now. Most of these Congresspeople, therefore, are much more worried about what Rush says than any logical reason - which is why you got so many different versions of what supposedly was the basis for rejection yesterday. They knew how to vote, but not why, and have nothing to back up most of their complaints as a result.
That's not to say it isn't in Obama's interest to try and play nice with them. The House Dems are relieved of the obligation to look weak in conceding anything (a major accusation against them from their own base), because he does it for them and looks magnanimous to the vast majority of Americans. He makes a few tweaks and shows he's sincere in listening, and eventually the Eric Cantors of the world (who is politically savvy and wants wider office) will vote for something the President really wants for the reflected glory working with him brings. At least a few Senators will do so, and I doubt McConnell has the power to pull off a filibuster on this (esp. if, as expected, the Senate version includes a tiny extra slice of GOP input).
The Republicans in the U.S. House are even farther to the right than their base; there are some real crackpots in their caucus. The Senate is a little different, the caucus there is much more moderate, as you would expect, because they have to run on a state-wide basis. The only crackpots there come from states which are entirely Republican in their makeup. Obama will have much more success in the Senate, than in the House. Thank God the U.S. House has no cloture requirement.
Obama is reaching across the isle to force his bill down the republicans throats. If he really wanted to reach across the aisle he would get the unnecessary spending out of the bill and replace it with tax cuts so we actually have a bipartisan bill. The majority of the tax cuts in this bill are going to people who do not pay any income tax. How does that help a middle class family that makes 100K with 2 kids and a mortgage?
That's what the republicans always do. It is what they have always done. That's why 59 democrats in the senate isn't enough.
When it comes down to it, they can all line up like the robots they are and do as they are told.
I won't be surprised if we have to wait until 2010 to get anything meaningful passed. I would like to be wrong, but we'll see.
@y_ricky. Who should get tax cuts? People who are out of a job and pay no taxes on no income? People who are employed and buying luxury goods and still enjoying huge bonuses? People who already got huge tax cuts ("the Bush cuts") but drove the economy to hell?
You Dems are drinking the coolaid again. Yesterday I was told that, according to Gallup, Texas and Georgia (among others) were now Blue States. Right. Today, the party line is that the GOP will be politically decimated for voting against this trillion dollar disaster. Sure. It's true that Bush destroyed the GOP legacy of small government and fiscal responsibility - but it is breathtaking how quickly the Dems are trying to hand it back. Folks - this bill along is TWICE the size of any of Bush's entire fiscal year deficits! It can be paid for either with printed money (inflation), or Chinese money (bankruptcy). "But Obama is popular" isn't an answer. I remind you, Bush had a 63% approval rating two months into his presidency. It won't last.
Ricky, because no economist not tolling in a Rush stupor agrees the most bang for the buck is in the spending, not in the the tax cuts. We already tried that multiple times under Bush, what part of it obviously didn't work don't you people understand...It's like you people need to be beat over the head with a bat to understand that your way failed miserably, that Obama, 1 week into his term with a mandate (yeah, a bigger one then Bush when he used it, love when I steal lines from that failure) should be given some ability to use his judgement on this issue since the people have spoken. But that would be too American of your side, no one would expect that from Rush disciples.
The shrinkage in the number of Republicans in the house means two things.
First, they don't have enough votes to get the best part in any 'bipartisan' approach, and certainly not to dictate a bill. The only thing they have left is "unity."
Second, the remaining GOP contingent in the house is largely concentrated in safe districts and carrying highly right-wing mandates. So their "safe" approach is to do a hold out on the Obama spending measure, cling to their ideology, and hope to be win more seats in 2010.
It's a pretty simple calculation for the House GOP.
The Senate GOP members are a more mixed lot. Many of their constituencies are more heterogeneous politically. Some are "red" elected officials in basically blue or pro-Obama states. So some of those GOP members will likely feel compelled to vote for the spending bill.
A major remaining question is how does the Senate -- in particular the Senate Dem contingent -- react to the House vote? Do they strip a lot of the "bipartisan" compromises out? Do they lard the bill up even more big spending programs? Do they reach across the aisle and give the GOP some thing that the House Dems did not?
Tune in next week....
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
I am not the diehard conservative that thinks Tax Cuts are the only way to go in this situation. I think there needs to be combination of Tax Cuts for everyone, not just the rich, not just the poor, not just anyone. I want tax cuts for EVERYONE. I am sick of the class warfare that is going on, and saying only the poor deserve tax cuts (when they pay nothing in anyways).
I am still amazed at the argument that bush's tax cuts didnt work. It made for one of the shortest lasting recessions on record. This recent recession was not a result of letting people keep their money. How can a recession be created from letting the individual keep more of what he earns?
The state and local governments need the money, but their budgets are overinflated anyways.
There is a good compromise that can be met here if the democrats will actually put in something the republicans can support into this bill.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
If you watch CNBC they are all against the House bill, but it's clear that some of the guest commentators are against it because the tax cuts in the bill are the "wrong kind" and focus on the middle class.
That's it. They just want the rich to get richer, as if they were passengers on the Titanic gathering up all the cash and jewelry and silverware.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
Juris - the main tax cut is 500 dollars for an individual filing single, and 1000 for a couple predominately aimed at lower income people, most of which already pay no taxes. It is designed to let them recover the FICA in which they pay in as well. This is an upper middle class or rich tax cut, they will not qualify for it.
If I may...
...THIS is GREAT News, for the Republican Party!
y-ricky: do you think low income people should get no cut in taxes?
juris- depends on where you draw the line to low income people. If you are talking about those who dont owe any income tax, how do you cut their taxes any further without calling it welfare?
I think everyone deserves a tax cut.
And don't get too worked up until we see what the Senate Republicans do. If a bunch of them support the package (which will be a bit different, of course), no one will really remember the House vote.
I'm not siding with the Republicans on this but, I can see why they would be up in arms when a few Democrats put their pet projects into this bill. Sure, some of those pet projects might save costs but this isn't the intent of this bill.
The mall projects should have remained though. It was a straight up job creator. The mall in DC is a disgrace and is never fully repaired because nobody can come up with the money. It's the Federal Govn't job to maintain the park. This would have been the ideal opportunity to come up with funding for it. The retainer wall on the river is crumbling. The sidewalks around the pool surrounded by the Cherry Blossoms is in shambles. The place needs a serious face lift. For fecks sake this is one of the biggest tourist attractions of the U.S. and our capital to boot, and its a mess.
I can't believe they got wrestled out of that one.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
y_ricky, what do you mean by "cut taxes"? Do you mean just income taxes? Or do you mean payroll taxes as well? And when the Republicans complain about "pork" like special education funding for local school districts and assistance to states for Medicaid, do they really NOT realize that THAT lowers my taxes too, at the local and state level?
And BTW, how was the timing on the crumbling American infrastructure report, which was covered on CNN last night immediately after the Republicans were trashing the Recovery Package for having too much infrastructure spending in it that would take too long to get into the economy (and citing old OMB statistics while doing it!). It just so happens that infrastructure spending is a good thing for more reasons than just stimulating the economy. It can also save our lives. Just ask the folks in Minneapolis.
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
From Mike Allen's Morning Playbook:
THE WHITE HOUSE PLANS TO RELEASE STATE-BY-STATE JOB NUMBERS 'SO WE CAN PUT A NUMBER ON WHAT FOLKS VOTED FOR AND AGAINST,' according to an administration aide, who adds: 'It's clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs.' A Democratic official: 'We will run campaigns in their districts.' Some Republicans will vote for the bill on final passage after the Senate version emerges, but that doesn't obviate the political risk. WATCH AS THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS BY BLENDING THE BLUNTNESS OF MR. EMANUEL WITH THE LIGHTER TOUCH OF THE PRESIDENT.And... BREAKING, from a little bird: 'Later today, MoveOn, Americans United for Change, AFSCME and SEIU will be announcing a new ad campaign on the stimulus. The ads will target U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Charles Grassley (R-IA).
This post is a suggestion to Nate:
Can we have a daily feature showing the % chance of Obama getting assassinated on each given day and the factors/analysis of why the % is rising or falling on each given day.
Even if the range throughout his presidency was from 0.25-5%, it would still be interesting nonetheless.
I implore you to take on my great idea.
Thanks!!!
Kennyb-to call spending to the state and local governments a possible tax cut is laughable. They will spend the money to cover their inflated budgets, and if theres anything left over, they will just increase their budget.
Payroll taxes were designed for individuals to pay into a system they will eventually get something in return for, ie social security. It isnt designed for 2/3 of the population to pay into to give 100% of the population benefit when they retire.
What are these people that dont pay any income taxes really looking for when they are asking for "tax cuts" for themselves?
Ricky,
The tax cut in question scores out as benefitting 95% of Americans. How is that "class warfare", especially when that top 5% have benefitted disproportionately from every tax break in the last 2 decades? Every "across the board" break done on percentages is essentially regressive, giving the biggest aid to those least in need of it. This is a small effort at making our tax system more progressive, which is what in theory it is supposed to be.
You are buying the idea its focused on low income people because it allows people who pay payroll taxes but not income taxes to also benefit from it. But these are the folks most likely to take a tax break and use it to spend money and stimulate the economy, because they actually need the cash to meet short term expenses.
The Republican alternative is primarily to cut income taxes for everyone, but with the biggest benefit for people who make enough to max out the first two tax brackets. Again, regressive, with the biggest benefit to people who are more likely to use the money to save or pay off debt, not spend - just like the 2007 stimulus.
The Bush tax cuts can't be given credit for getting us out of the slump of 2001 (at lest unless you want to blame it for the current mess, too). The "recovery" (in which people's earning power actually went down) was fueled in no small part by that little housing and spending bubble driven by easy credit and deregulation - which is why we now have a much deeper hole.
Take a look at this Star Tribune article from yesterday. Coleman's attorneys are criticizing county decisions to reject absentee ballots by 37 college students and a woman whose name probably did match-up, but which their own campaign may have blocked counting before by refusing to agree to its inclusion! Unreal. Where are those "sanctions" the MN Supreme Court was talking about? I'd say the sanction should be telling Coleman's lawyers that they can't have it both ways. G'bye.
I hope the Senate cleans this bill up and includes more on upgrading electrical grids.
There's no reason in this day in age why our country should be having the sweeping blackouts that have been occurring this week. Hopefully they put another 500k-800k of electrical grid funding in there at a bare minimum.
I want to write to my Republican Congressman and castigate him for following the party line and opposing the Recovery Bill, but, boo hoo, I don't HAVE a Republican Congressman anymore!
Look you really need to stick to numbers not political commentary.
It's obviously good for the party as a whole. If the stimulus succeeds Dems/Obama get the credit even with 20 republican votes. If it fails they have clean hands.
What are Republicans for?
Right now that is a vald question. Social Conservativism is dieing, or rather it's supporters are dieing of old age. The base can only get smaller.
Fiscal Conservatism is discredited by eight years of Bush spending, but it is the only viable rally cry.
Whether or not the stimulus packages do their job they can't continue indefinitly. A point will come when they must stop. It must be the Republican plan to own that point.
This question could be put another way: Is there even one Republican who took a freshman-level economics class in college? Duh...
Where's Buffet? Where's Soros?
With brains like those, and access to the best talent in the world, the only guy you could find to run the treasury is a tax cheat?
Do Buffet and Soros approve of this runaway train they endorsed? Is there anyone who can stop this runaway train before it goes over the cliff?
In a few short months we went from the subprime mortgage problem to a complete meltdown. And now this massive spending orgy.
It's like a worm has gotten into the system and is eating the hardrive, and taking the European markets with it. It's erasing the mainframe.
The other 78% don't even know what's about to hit them. That kool-aid they bought was supposed to be an expensive vat of champagne.
rays242:
Final warning before I call the local Secret Service field office.
Berkley-I dont know where you are getting that 95 % number, maybe you can show me. Everything Im seeing shows mostly people that pay no taxes are the ones that will receive benefit.
And of course in a progressive system, the top brackets get more bang for their buck when you have accross the board tax cuts. They are getting 35 cents on the dollar deduction as opposed to 15 cents on the dollar. Don't like it? move up tax brackets, pay alot more tax, and then you will get more bang for your buck.
Why didn't any Republicans vote for this? Because it's going to come around again, in a slightly modified form. So they've demonstrated that they're standing for principle now, and then claim that the changes to the bill made it acceptable to them later. That way they show that they were also bipartisan, claim partial credit for success, and still get off the hook if there's failure.
See what the real House vote looks like for a better idea of where they're going.
I am a first time poster but a long time lurker. but a post by Matt Bruce very early in this thread really got my goat. The republican party claims to be the party of small government but has taken a total national debt of 1 trillion dollars at the start of the Reagan administration and added a total of 9.5 trillion dollars to it at the end of BushII. the only balanced budget in that entire period was submitted by Bill Clinton.
They are not the party of small government and fiscal responsibility but are the party of giving hugh tax breaks to the wealthy while increasing spending.
y_ricky said:
"The majority of the tax cuts in this bill are going to people who do not pay any income tax."
Ummmm... Ricky? This is some interesting spin you've got here. If people aren't paying any income tax, then they cannot possibly pay LESS. You can't cut 0%. Once you get down to zero, tax cuts are impossible, so your statement is false.
This is the kind of malarkey that the so-called "Conservative" pundits like to toss around and that their clueless listeners spout as if it were Gospel.
y_ricky,
Did you really just write that government waste in this country is because state and local government budgets are inflated? You have got it all wrong, my friend and have made the most cogent argument yet of why the Republicans are losing the tax debate. Cutting federal taxes to the rich has led to rising state and local taxes for the middle and lower classes.
I live in New Hampshire. We have no sales tax and our budget is anything but inflated. In fact, our state is routinely sued, and loses, because it fails to meet federal mandates in areas like Medicaid services. The Bush administration loved to push mandates down to the State, county and local level with no commensurate funding source and we have seen our state, county and local taxes soar. So, go ahead and cut my federal income taxes while my County tax rate soars and my local property tax rate skyrockets because of federally mandated education "reforms" and unfunded special education mandates, and see how much that extra money "stimulates" the economy. My federal tax stimulus check last year went right to my rising property tax bill.
And the next past of Optician in Maryland's argument:
Bush's $9.5 trillion in debt went to desroy and then build infrastructure in Iraq, while we let it crumble or get washed out to sea here at home. THAT is America First? Disgusting.
Looks like the sock puppet from nursury-school is back...
Bottom line is that the GOP is being obstructionist, pure and simple. This unanimity does not demonstate their united concern about "bankrupting the country" but about throwing lasso after lasso at the ground hoping one of them will snag Obama by the feet. The country is already bankrupt; if the Freeps were acting out of concern they would have formulated their own solid alternative proposal, which they haven't. All they can do is screech "Tax cuts!" over and over, like a Chatty Cathy doll whose tape loop has been sold to the devil.
Sewmouse
"Ummmm... Ricky? This is some interesting spin you've got here. If people aren't paying any income tax, then they cannot possibly pay LESS. You can't cut 0%. Once you get down to zero, tax cuts are impossible, so your statement is false."
You just made my points, its not a tax cut, its welfare!
Kenny, what I said is that their overinflated budgets that they are getting money for will not go towards lowering local taxes, property taxes, etc. THe money will go to covering their deficit. They will not in turn lower the amount they take in in the form of a tax cut to the people.
Another thing--regarding the $815 billion stimulus that everybody is getting the vapors over due to its size, it is necessary to remember that the minute Ronald Reagan took office machinery was put in place (stupendous tax cuts, monstrously bloated military spending) that ballooned the deficit by $1 trillion almost immediately. Those were 1 trillion 1981 dollars too, folks, and since the country didn't tip over and sink under that enormous burden it is unlikely to do so now.
The next time a Republican goes to the Wailing Wall about the huge deficits that will be necessary to pull us out of this mess, it might be helpful to remind him of Dick Cheney's words when he took office as shadow-president in 2001--"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
I'm not so sure that this vote was as stupid as some of you think it is. It may not help them, but I don't think the R's had much of a choice. From a purely political point of view, the they had very little room to maneuver. By voting for the bill, they give Obama and the Democratic leadership a victory. By voting against the bill the worst that can happen is that the economy recovers. Then at the midterm elections in 2010 the D's can use this against them, claiming that they helped recover Bush's horrible economy no thanks to the Repubs.
However as most of us know, the average American attention span is very short, and I doubt many will remember this vote come 2010. As long as things are recovering, people will be fat and happy and be worried about others things. More likely than not there will be other issues in the news at that time.
However if the economy continues to falter, the R's could stand a huge gain in 2010 if they can manage to relabel themselves as fiscal conservatives. Given the last 20 years of borrow and spend, this could be a tall order, but again the American attention span is short.
While this vote may not be right, or may not work, I don't think the Repubs had much of a choice. They were stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place here. I guess after all these years of screwing things up, what can you expect.
Just got back from five weeks in Texas. Thirty percent of the population is Hispanic. By 2040, 60% of the population will be Hispanic. The trend will continue in other Sunbelt states. Hispanics traditionally vote Democratic. Of course, Texas and many other currently Repug states will turn blue.
I am tired of the 'class warfare' arguments
I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Colin Powell's statement during the presidential campaign.
Once you look past the simple-minded rhetorical world it needs to be realized the government spends money in ways that helps different people in different amounts. Having discussions of who should pay what should be a combination of what is fair and what works best for our country.
Talking about it is NOT 'class warfare'
Take public defense for example. Everyone gets the benefits. However, the rich get better benefits. They get security not just for their individual body, but also for their property, their invested assets, and the companies they own.
If we did not have a government taking care of our defense needs you would see poor and lower middle classes spending little or no money on security. The upper classes, however, would spend a great deal of money on security for themselves, their property, and their businesses.
When I travel to third world countries I see the poor with no security, however the richer a person is the more they seem to spend. Private security forces, reinforced walls/barb wire. That is just for domestic security and doesn't include national/regional security.
Anyways my original point is just because someone has a conversation about who should pay what...we can't just simply yell class warfare. There are real reasons for the debate.
This is what House Republicans are looking for from Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8pHHJTejwY
Nobody really thinks that this stimulus package is really going to do the job. This is 1933 all over again and we're going to need to do VASTLY more than this to begin to get ourselves out of this mess that 8 years of Republican misrule has landed us in!
We can STOP listening to useless right-wing crap about "tax cuts!" for the same crew that got the tax cuts in 2001.
It flat DIDN'T WORK! 400,000 jobs over 8 years was the WORST economic performance since the Great Depression!
So, now we're going to direct government stimulus. That means government spending that directly hires people. NO more tax cuts!
This is ROUND 1 of the stimulus. Next year there will be ANOTHER stimulus package and there WON'T be any tax cuts for billionaires involved!
Republicans can scream about it in the media all they want. But, the only thing that's going to save us now is MORE government spending.
It's the new New Deal. Get used to it, because Republicans have as much chance of stopping this as they did in 1934 or 1936.
It's going to take 2 more election thumpings before they begin to get the message. We're not listening to your crap any more! Tax cuts DO NOT translate into new jobs and we need new, good paying jobs. Direct government spending is the only way to go!
Why is it that some idiots claim that cutting payroll taxes for people who don't pay income tax is "welfare"? How can anyone possibly justify such a stupid statement?
Michael - Ill take that as a stab at me. Cutting someone's payroll taxes while not cutting their future benefit of receiving social security is just that, welfare.
What do you call cutting someone's income taxes that pay no income tax then?
Its a government program which taxes money from one person and gives it to another. Thats welfare.
And Cugel, you are right. Letting people keep the money they earn doesnt lead to any growth.
y_ricky, you lost me when you talked about someone "middle-class" who earns "100K". That's two and a half times the median.
Sorry I didnt realize both spounses making 50k a year isnt middle class?
More headlines they probably didn't hope to see: "House Republicans on the Defensive" just above "Obama Approval Spills Over on Congress".
y_ricky, do you actually believe that the government pays you back your Social Security based on what you pay into the system? That's not how it works. Working people pay NOW for people CURRENTLY receiving benefits. And poor people - including those too poor to be required to pay income tax - are killed by the regressive payroll tax rates. And since such working poor people have no excess income to put away in credit swaps or something, whatever tax cuts they get will be SPENT, which is the point of a STIMULUS. Some "welfare"! The way you Republicans war against the working poor and then accuse Democrats of "class warfare" against the wealthiest is repugnant and hypocritical.
Why is someone partisan for voting "no" but bipartisan for voting "yes"? Could it be both sides are political, first, second and last?
http://www.rightsideproject.blogspot.com
The Republicans want the Democrats to own this bill, lock, stock, and barrel. The Republicans gain nothing whatsoever by supporting it, and if they don't support it, the Democrats will wind up owning the economy 100% the second Obama signs it, with no confusing "bipartisanship" to dilute that ownership. This way, in two years when we still have ten percent unemployment and a Whopper™ goes for $60, the Democrats will be politically screwed for a generation.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花莲租车,租车,租車,花莲,租車公司,行易花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮,一日遊,一日遊,溯溪,賞鯨,泛舟,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花蓮,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,租車,花東,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮,租車,花東 旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮,旅遊,租車公司,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮地圖,包車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮 租車,租車,花蓮租車資訊網,花蓮旅遊,租車,花東,花東地圖,租車公司,租車網,花蓮租車旅遊,租車,花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊,租車網,花蓮海洋公園,租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,租車網,花蓮租車公司,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車公司,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮太魯閣,花蓮包車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,租車,花蓮旅遊推薦,花蓮旅遊包車,花蓮租車,花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮地圖,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊資訊網,花蓮旅遊景點,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊景點,花東旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,旅遊達人,旅遊達人blog,花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花東旅遊,地圖,租車,賞鯨泛舟溯溪,租車,[ 芝麻店家 ] 花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮租車-花蓮旅遊租車資訊網 ,旅遊網,旅遊景點,花蓮行程,花蓮,花東,旅遊租車,旅遊,花蓮,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車旅遊,行易旅遊民宿資訊網,民宿,推薦花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿推薦,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮民宿網,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮,旅遊,花蓮,一日遊,花蓮好玩的地方,花蓮,,一日遊,花東,租車,旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊-花東旅遊萬事通
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment