Threats for going against the party...

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by DGTess

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.

Finally, someone said it! Thanks...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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

1. It's not politically expedient. If the bill doesn't work, they don't get any blame and they can blame Democrats to their hearts' content. If it does work, they count on people not remembering come election time that they didn't support it or at least giving them credit for being "careful."

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

Finally, someone said it! Thanks...

I said it in post # 5:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

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?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I said it in post # 5:

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.

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

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.

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.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.