Obama '08?

Ok, you're essentially saying that the republicans should just give in because it's only 1% of the bill.

Fine.


But you have to admit that the democrats are doing the exact same thing. If the republicans should cave in because it's only 1% then that SAME argument could be applied to the democrats caving in because it's only 1%.

I don't think that the republicans are all that opposed to the other 99% of the bill (at least most of them), but it's these PET PROJECTS that Obama said he'd have no part of, that are causing the problem. And they SHOULD cause a problem. They don't belong in this stimulus bill any more than creating a program to expand abstinence-only education does.

02.04.09 -- 12:38PM
Denial As Political Strategy

Behind all the back and forth over the Stimulus Bill is a simple fact: the debate in Washington is rapidly moving away from any recognition that the US economy -- and the global economy, for that matter -- is in free-fall. The range of outcomes stretches from severe recession to something closer to a replay of the Great Depression, though that label is perhaps better seen as a placeholder for 'catastrophic economic collapse' since the underlying place of the US economy in the world economy is very different from what it was in 1929. This reality was palpable in the political debate until as recently as a few weeks ago. But Republicans are using a strategy of conscious denial to push it off the stage.

Take stock of the last few weeks and you can almost visualize the two conversations -- path toward economic calamity and debate over Stimulus Bill -- diverging.

The other key into the current debate is that the Republican position is ominously similar to their position on global warming or, for that matter, evolution. The discussion of what to do on the Democratic side tracks more or less with textbook macroeconomics, while Republican argument track either with tax cut monomania or rhetorical claptrap intended to confuse. It's true that macro-economics doesn't make controlled experiments possible. And economists can't speak to these issues with certainty. But in most areas of our lives, when faced with dire potential consequences, we put our stock with scientific or professional consensus where it exists, as it does here. Only in cases where it goes against Republican political interests or economic interests of money-backers do we prefer the schemes of yahoos and cranks to people who study the stuff for a living.

Of course, at some level, why would Republicans be trying to drive the country off a cliff? Well, not pretty to say, but they see it in their political interests. Yes, the DeMints and Coburns just don't believe in government at all or have genuinely held if crankish economic views. But a successful Stimulus Bill would be devastating politically for the Republican party. And they know it. If the GOP successfully bottles this up or kills it with a death of a thousand cuts, Democrats will have a good argument amongst themselves that Republicans were responsible for creating the carnage that followed. But the satisfaction will have to be amongst themselves since as a political matter it will be irrelevant. The public will be entirely within its rights to blame Democrats for any failure of government action that happened while Democrats held the White House and sizable majorities in both houses of Congress.

--Josh Marshall

okie wrote:

Such as does the 500k apply to moviestars and sports stars?

okie wrote:

I have just mentioned the tip of the iceberg.

From here, it looks more like you're going bonkers with impotent rage....

Ok, so why don't the Democrats just drop that 1% and then politically force republicans to vote for the bill? Or at least force republicans to argue that they don't want poor people to get money.

Well I know that he wants that 1% to pass because it will make it easier to get funding for projects that would have a much harder time passing if they were outside of this stimulus package.

But I guarentee you that if this were a republican bill and 1% of the money were going to expand abstinence-only sex educations classes or tax cuts for oil company exploration...he'd be pissed off about it.

I remember quite a few spending bills during the 1st 6 years of Bush's term (when Republican's controlled the government) that had project like these in them (except from the opposite end of the political spectrum) and Cyclops and others (including me) were bitching about them as well; even though it was only a small % of the total spending. Think back to some of the war funding bills that had a ton of republican policy-agenda items tacked on. We bitched about those a lot on this site.

But now that Democrats are in control, Cyclops is A-OK with all of it.

Change is in the air!