I admit that I don’t know anything about this bill except what I read in this article (i.e. nothing), so I don’t know what’s in it or why or why any of those things might be good or bad. Heck, I don’t even know the HR# or SR# or anything.
In my continuing effort to edumacate myself real good, I thought I’d put this up for discussion and see which way the wind blows, and hopefully learn a few things at the same time.
I guess it boils down to what the Prez said today:
I suppose it depends on how you look at it. One way might be to suggest that, at a deficit of a trillion and a half, no new spending is fully paid for.
Reid has put this bill aside six times since January, so perhaps the rush now has to do with Dems wanting to have something to show come November.
As far as I can tell it’s the standard “we want votes on our amendments” argument. Whether you think this is “partisan politics” most likely depends on your political affiliation.
ETA: It is H.R.5297. I believe it’s now back in the Senate Finance Committee.
Or maybe he put it aside because they didn’t have the votes to pass it, because Republicans are more concerned about what Dems have “to show come November,” than what is good for the country.
Hogwash, up until Brown was elected to replace Kennedy, the Dems had enough votes to pass anything they wanted. Even now, they know there are at least 2-3 RINOS they can buy a vote from when needed.
I would venture it kept getting put back because there was still room for more earmark projects and they didn’t want to miss an opportunity to line another donor or lobbyist’ pockets.
Bullshit. Frankly, given the Abramoff scandal, if anybody is out to line lobbyist pockets, it’s the Republicans. The problem is that they can’t stick a ban against gay marriage or an anti-abortion clause in there.
I wasn’t pushing the earmark issue as partisan, both parties are guilty of this, and in grand fashion. Frankly, my trust in the vast majority of Congress is minimal.
So let me get this straight: more than 24 hours ago I posted a thread asking for information on and opinions about a bill being brought forward that potentially will affect millions of business for either good or ill, and none of our self-proclaimed economy wanks can explain what’s in the bill, why it should be passed or not.
BUT we have countless threads asking “Is Obama To Blame” and these same folks will jump right in to excoriate or praise the man and/or his policites.
What gives? Don’t all these people care about small business owners?
2 days now and none of our so-called economy wanks have anything to say about this?
I thought the whole problem with Obama was that he was anti-business?
Here’s a chance to show that anti-business-ness in action, to demonstrate with their own words that the Democratic leadership is clueless on matters of the economy, and there’s nothing that anyone has to say about this bill?
Are you fucking kidding me?
I can only assume that Obama’s comments are accurate, then, and that it is only partisan GOP bullshittery that is preventing an otherwise near-perfect bill from gaining passage.
Nice catch. I think that was the last thing I typed, at 3:34am, before I went to bed finally.
Yes, that should be “wonk”. No insult intended. Sorry for the error.
I’d still like to get some info and opinions, btw.
It’s just ridiculous that with all the bithcing about how Obama is anti-business, with a fucking bill in front of them none of our critics can make an appearance and back up their bullshit.
Here it is, folks! Your chance to bitch about real stuff! A chance to show us what’s wrong with how Obama wants to treat business! OVER HERE!
Amazingly, much as in rational debates, the onus is on the side which wants to do something to make an argument. I am neither logically nor morally required to create an argument against something without having something to argue against - and I have no deep desire to try and painstakingly gather information on the precise economic effects of this particularly bill. If you can explain what it does and how it works, and why, on that basis, we ought to favor it, I will consider some response.
Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? Why or why not?
[/quote]
That’s the subject of the debate. It’s pretty clear, pretty straightforward what is under discussion here.
So you came in here to tell us that you know nothing about this, and you aren’t going to educate yourself, either.
I won’t be telling you much about this bill that I haven’t already written, btw. I said in the OP part of my purpose here was to try and better educate myself. You read that, right?
That is not an argument. “Some guy says he likes it” fails to even be worth mentioning. “Why not?” doesn’t actually answer the question, “Why?”
No. It is obviously, grossly incomplete, and even if it were the truthiess truthful thing ever, would fail to be sufficent reason for anything.
No, the subject of debate has been Obama’s opinion, and how he’s so much better than his critics, despite being a useless little tool in office.
Since you were too lazy to even figure out which Bill it was, or what the Bill actually says, before coming in here, I think this is a pretty big bit of hypocrisy. You don’t want to educate yourself. You want other people to spend their time and energy to educate your lazy arse.
And it is much more fun to instruct you in all the ways you are deficient and challenge you to make a real post.
You haven’t written anything about the bill. You’ve written screeds against people who don’t like Obama. You have written that Obama likes the Bill. You have failed to write, in any way, shape, or form, any defense or argument about the Bill itself.
The argument was not “some guy says he likes it”. That’s a statement of fact, not a point for debate. Why would you think that was the subject for debate, when it’s not a debatable point. He either said it or he didn’t.
The subject for debate is the other part:
.
See, that part has debatable content. Are there other reasons? What might they be?
I’m not sure what you’re even getting at here. Are you saying the bill isn’t near perfect? In what ways? What content in this bill do you find objectionable? Oh wait, that’s right, you said you know nothing about it, and aren’t going to learn anything about it. So how did you form that opinion there?
Thank you for that unsolicited opinion. Your contributions to the thread are, I’m sure, noted.
See, in a debate, there’s usually a topic. Sometimes you’ll see the topic presented as: “Resolved: Some point for debate.”
And Obama did that, by presenting the topic for debate as: this bill should be passed, and the only thing holding it up is partisan politics on the part of the GOP.
The next speaker then attempts to rebut, or cast doubt on, the accuracy of the resolution.
I’ve done my part by presenting the OP. Now your part is to rebut the argument made.
What is in the damn bill? your OP link was content-free, just Obama speechifyin’.
The WashingtonMonthly blog piece by Jas09 tried to save your bacon but it too doesn’t go into the details, it’s just a thinly-veiled attempt to hammer the GOP.
You can bet that if the Maine Senators are against it, then it’s not exactly middle-of-the-road. The GOP whip doesn’t command that kind of kneejerk obedience.