Threats for going against the party...
 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...mulus-backers/


This is CRAZY to me... I thought party lines were guidelines, not the rule... secondly, I am encourage to vote for Senators who showcase they are not voting by party lines but based on their own individual opinion, because, after all, isn't that what we elect them for?

Right.. then don't vote for any of the Democrats who are all voting along party lines either.

Exactly - I don't see any big deal here.

You see nothing wrong with people putting up money to get people out of office who did not vote how they were TOLD to...

What I am saying, you should not be punished for crossing party lines... I vote for officials who republican and democrat... it is not about that for me... Snowe, and the other two were elected to vote based on what THEY think is best, not what they think their party thinks is best...

AND YES, I do find it oddly amazing and confusing that EVERY democratic senator agreed with the stimulus...

I see nothing wrong with partisans raising money to try and nominate candidates (and then elect those candidates) who represent what they believe their party stands for.

I don't think we elect Senators and representative to "think for themselves" per se. While I think we typically want them to do that, we elect them to represent us and to do what is in our best interests. One way we decide on which candidate we think we will reoresent us best is by party affiliation.

I presume that Snowe et al are confident that their own constituents will support the position they are taking, even if the Republican Party as a whole does not.

Right... but these are not the people of Maine, or Pennsylvania who announced the campaign... this was announced right before the vote as a scare tactic...

Yes, and it was announced by a PAC, not by the Republican Party itself.

Put another way: would you have a problem with an anti-abortion group donating money to the opponent of a pro-choice senator? It's exactly the same thing, just on a larger scale.

This wasn't done by the RNC, which seems to be what you think is happening.

No... I understand what is happening... I understand it is not the RNC... but these threats like this is exactly what is holding us back. We seem more concerned of preventing the other guys mission than pushing our own...

This is on top of the current situation where both sides seem to be much more stubborn then ever, and its irritating. Yes, I know it is how it has been for a while, but clearly, it has not been working...

Republican seem to be dead set against the stimulus, just because its by the democrats, and the Democrats rejected the Republican's alternatives, seemingly, because they are republican... We don't have the time for this shit!!!

I find it SOO hard to believe that there is such a clearly defined divide...

A couple of things:

1) I don't know that it's fair to say that this stuff is what's "holding us back;" I would be shocked if interest groups didn't try actions like this to get their point across, and interest groups have been doing things like this for years and years. I'm not sure how much it really impedes things because, honestly, I can't envision a world without interest groups. For all of those times that some groups may impede progress, there are other times that those same groups can help push an important issue to the forefront.

2) Maybe I'm just not cynical enough, but I'd also disagree with the notion that "Republican seem to be dead set against the stimulus, just because its by the democrats, and the Democrats rejected the Republican's alternatives, seemingly, because they are republican..." I think the issues go a bit deeper than that, having to do with the amount of money involved and how that money is being used. I'd like to think that, at some level, the debate is about deeper issues than partisan pride, so to speak.

I'd say that clear divide has existed since (at least) Reagan.

Politics as usual.

Before that...if you're talking about the modern parties, I think you can go back to the Goldwater Republicans (who inspired Reagan).

Honestly, though, there's been a big split between national parties since the days of the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.

Well, I am a strong advocate of debate, but I really find it hard that 99 smart, education individuals come together, and have either one of two opinions... and those opinion (except for 3) line exactly with ones party... a little crazy to me... I think we are not debating enough with in our own respective parties, because you are right, due to the money involved and how that is money is being used...

Perhaps the "Gotcha" media just publicizes the divide more.

Or perhaps it's a bit of a weighing game. Say you're a Senator who is opposed to most of the stimulus package, but supports a couple of the provisions. Are you going to risk angering your party leadership and your constituents over a couple issues that may be minor in light of the big picture? Same question if you're generally in favor of the stimulus but have problems with a couple of issues.

I think, short of the floor/committee debate and sound bytes with the media, Congresspeople are a bit limited in what they can actually do.

True - but those conflicts have gone through history, from the one I referenced, through the Republican v. Democrat debates in the Civil War era, to the Republicans attacking Wilson during/after World War I, to the present day.

That's not to say that the divide is always a bad thing; there are times when it can be beneficial, when it really symbolizes the "checks and balances" ideal of the government.

... it was a joke. About Sarah Palin.

in my opinion, YES... it is not about party leadership or "constituents"... because that makes it a game, and it is not suppose to be...

and before you call me on it, yes, I am an idealist, and yes, I know it is never going to happen, but that does not mean I am not right

"Holding us back" huh? From what? Some sort of 'consensus solution' that magically solves an economic problem?

What if consensus is actually wrong, and one side or the other is actually 'correct' (or more correct enough to make a difference)?

This is confirmation bias at its finest, don't you think? How many administrations' worth of data are you looking at? It seemed to work fine from 1985-2005, didn't it?

We have all the time in the world for "this shit" - immediate action isn't always a good thing. In fact, more time to evaluate the depth of the market bottom might actually give us better information to work with. You're being reactionary.

OK?

Oh, ok KSig RC, I am sorry, i forgot that I am not allowed to have an opinion... I was merely saying that TO ME it appears that there is a CLEAR strong divide in this particular case... I did not know that I had to research ever vote in congress over the last 24 years in order to develop that opinion. Lord forgive me for thinking that yes, we need to act now, and yes, we need to act together not separately, ... Please, KSig, will you ever forgive me?

The fact that something is your opinion does not automatically give it any validity. Back your words up with something other than classic examples of fallacy.

Of course you're allowed to have an opinion. Others are allowed to disagree with your opinion and even to identify what they believe are fallacies underlying your opinion.

I thought you said you like debate.

Serious question: Why, in your opinion, do we need to act together rather than separately? As long as something is done, why does it matter how big the majority that gets it done is?

ETA: Never mind, it's been said already by MC and Kevin.

Just a question, but when did it ever become ok to state one's opinion without expecting some sort of voice of dissent, especially on a board this big with this many people?

Yes, but he was not debating my opinion, but my proof behind my opinion, when I think I made it clear it as how I perceive it... lol, MysticCat: working together is crucial, a) so that all aspects come into account, b) because we are a democracy, that is what makes us great, one person's or one side's opinion is not enough judgement to spend almost a trillion dollars

I'm not sure that you made that as clear, at least at first, as you may think, and I'm not sure that "debating the proof behind" your opinion rather than your opinion itself isn't a distinction without a difference.

Democracy =/= concensus. At least in our form of it, democracy = majority rules.

Nor does the fact that the majority rules mean that other opinions are not taken into account. They might be or they might not be.

you know what, Ksig, sorry... really, i am... its irrelevant...

I just think that this requires bipartisanship more than ever!!! And so seeing either side (whether in the house or senate or out of it) push to stick to party lines just pisses me off, because I find it trivial and out-dated. A large enough support either side that both sides needed to put their differences aside and put together a true compromise. Not something that will prove one party is greater than the other. I am even pissed at Obama for his recent efforts to say the republicans should just shut up and do what he says... that is not how our government should be utilized.

There was no chance in hell Republicans were going to support this. Here's why:

1. It's way the hell too big.

2. Most of it is a waste.

3. I think we're probably fairly close to the market bottom already and nothing in the bill goes into effect particularly fast in any case, so why not have someone know what is in the bill?

4. This administration's idea of "bipartisanship" seems to be: invite the Republicans to dinner, go to Capitol Hill to meet Republicans, explain your idea of the bill, when
Republicans suggest changes respond "We aren't going to repeat the failed ideas of the last 8 years. The election was a referendum on that and we won", get upset when no Republicans vote for your bill.

And looking at those aspects of the process, I'm kind of upset those three Republicans caved anyways. This stimulus is a huge bundle of waste which will only prolong the recession and kick the real issues down the curb to deal with later, Democrats demanded to have it that way, so make them own the bill.

I think, from your opinion's standpoint, that maybe being upset at the 58 democrats who did not stand up to their party and say hell no, would be more in line...

They're Democrats, I've already come to terms with the fact they don't make rational decisions. ;)

(Although I'm damn impressed with Heath Shuler in the House. Put himself in the Democrat doghouse by voting against the bailout and then saying
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way ... I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed." That's pretty smart for a former Tennessee Vol QB.)

Heaven forbid you have to defend your position . . . why don't you explain why you see it that way?

Here's a great example: why does bipartisanship matter as long as things get 'done'?

Put another way: If we have "A" and "B" as partisan views, and "C" as a synthesis (or bipartisan view), what guarantees that C is better than A or B? Maybe one side or another is wrong on this one - after all, there are two very strong competing views on this issue.

On the other hand, I believe they are elected to do what their constituents want, not what their party wants, and not what THEY necessarily think is best.

Because there are two competing STRONG views on the issue, I have a difficulty believing that ALL of one side believes strongly with their side and the MASS MAJORITY of the other side believes strongly with their side... People are not black and white... Secondly, these people are acting on behalf of the 300 million plus in this country who have various opinions.

It is easy to get things done... not so easy to get the right thing done. The sides are two extremes, and we need to find what is best for the 300 million plus. Both sides have people who think they have the answer, and when those answers conflict, a money contest from lobbyist will not make sure that a quality answer derives.

I love that we have a two party system, as opposed to a one party system. I want both parties at play so that a variety of solutions are researched and brought to the table. That way, we can compromise by taking the good parts here there and elsewhere and prefect it.

Both sides always use "this is what the american people want"... I heard it from the line of Republicans who spoke after the bill past, as well as Obama and Pelosi. The American people can not be put into one box either. Nor can they come together an unanimously decide on one decision. However, the use of collaboration/bi-partisanship as well as questioning one's own party will point out imperfections.

Yes, I want things done, I just want them done right. I think choosing one side or the other, in a two party system, is not going to be right. SECONDLY, this particular case relies greatly on the American people's confidence. Their confidence will increase their spending, which is important since we are a consumer-driven economy. All of those who are republican, or believe in the republican senator/representative who voted against the bill will not have the confidence that this stimulus will help. That is a lot of people...

Finally, someone said it! Thanks... ;)

Fixed it for you. ;)

I said it in post # 5:
;)

Ironically, it's you who is being "black and white" here.

Obviously, each individual congressperson probably has his or her own individual view on this situation. However, it would be sheer agony if each propped up their own idea as a proposed bill - so we have to have consolidation.

What's the most-likely way to consolidate a budget bill? Well, ostensibly, we could say that one substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans comes in the way each would prefer to spend money in the abstract - big v. small government, taxation versus tax breaks, top-down versus bottom-up economics, etc. The most likely consolidation is along party lines. The most likely problems are going to be endemic ideological differences that will not be "split down the middle" with any ease.

With all of this in mind, would you prefer that they argue 95 different bills, for every shade of gray?

If so - don't you see how this goes DIRECTLY against your "act-now" feelings?

If not - then what's the objection?

I never said anything about 95 bills, I think we all can agree with the ridiculousness of that. What needs to be done is a few democrats going across the table with a few republicans to make one bill. I think the creation of a bill of this magnitude requires consideration from multiple angles.

That can't happen when there is a nearly complete philosophical split in opinions over what fixes it. How do you consolidate the view that we need more limited spending almost exclusively on permanent or semi-permanent tax cuts (not rebates) and anything more will make it worse with the view that we need massive government spending on anything to inject cash and that tax cuts are a big part of what got us into it? They are fairly mutually exclusive views that aren't really going to compromise well. That's why about the only votes across party lines are the liberal state Republicans in the Senate and the fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House.

ETA: And it doesn't help win any Republicans who would consider crossing party lines when a lot of said massive government spending that the Democrats are proposing is being allocated towards projects that Republicans would either love to kill if they had the political capital to do so or have been resisting implementation of for years.

You would need 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans to pass such a bill. It would have to satisfy Democratic desire to support the lower and middle classes through jobs and program funding, while also satisfying Republican desire to spur on the economy with middle-class tax cuts.

Thirty - not a few, thirty. I think this is the wrong issue to hope for bipartisanship - others to avoid: abortion, affirmative action, rinse, repeat.

Here's the problem, and where we're not connecting: NO ONE knows what the right solution is. A LOT of people think they know the best solution, but there are multiple disagreements. It just so happens that two of the main camps, as it were, in this fight align very well with traditional Republican and Democratic views on the economy and government's role in it.

Because there's no right answer, there's no real way to say that any small group of senators would come up with a solution that's amicable to both - and CERTAINLY not in the expedited ("we don't have time for this shit!!") time frame you're encouraging. This is actually one of the root concerns I had with your first post.

Ok, I thought someone had already said it. Plus, I think that some of these Congressmen and women are doing what their constituents want. There are a lot of citizens who don't want this stimulus bill, because they're worried about the costs and future impact.

It's already been said, but this is a seriously polarizing issue. It almost seems like you're proposing some quick compromise bill, just for the sake of bipartisan support and getting a stimulus quickly enacted.

By saying we need to act fast, we I meant we need to act now. I believe it doing it right. Not half-assed, and it has happened before. I just don't think it is something we sit on for the next couple of months, thinking hey, someone should do something... Secondly, I do not think bi-partisanship is such a far fetched idea. Look at Senator Lugar. He is a well respected republican, not too moderate, who has reached across the table several times to great success. It can be done. As much as they seem fucked up by the Gotcha media... I have a feeling that 30 dems and 30 repubs. actually can find something they all can agree on...

What is the other option? What we have now... a bill that appeals to just more than half of America, at the expense of a trillion dollars for a poor economy, which will rely on confidence from the American people that they are ok to be consumers again... and that is not going to happen.