Mods, forgive me if this thread has already been done.
The newsmedia have reported several times over that Congressional Republicans are extremely critical of Obama’s Economic Stimulus Plan as overspending. (I can provide a cite if necessary, but I think everyone here is up on current events.)
So my question is three-fold:
How can the Republicans support Bush’s plan and criticize Obama’s plan as being too expensive when both plans are worth roughly the same amount of money?
How can they criticize Obama’s plan when their plan not only arguably failed to meet its goals, but had few, if any, strings attached to the money and little oversight as to how the money is spent?
Is their disagreement with the plan genuine or an attempt to make a partisan stance?
I’m very curious as to the Republican mindset these days, specifically when it comes to the economy. Would any of our Republican dopers please stand up and explain the current philosophy?
The same way that Dem’s could go ballistic about anything Bush/Republican’s did while passively going along with essentially the same thing if it comes from Obama/Democrats. People are partisan, and right now the shoe is on the other foot wrt Republican’s…so they are lashing back.
Because they are idiots, frankly. But then, the Dem’s are idiots too since a lot of them think that THEIR plan will actually work. The situation is so highly partisan that neither side can see anything beyond their own narrow view…and the equally narrow view they have of the OTHER side.
Well, I’m sure there are philosophic and subtle economic differences (and some not so subtle one’s too), but by and large I think that it’s completely partisan in nature. Frankly to me BOTH sides plans suck the big one, neither is IMHO grounded in reality…so, essentially we are looking at which one will do LESS harm in the long run.
The Republican’s had 8 years (well, depending on how you want to count things wrt Congress and the Senate and their impact on things) to fuck things up. Now the Dem’s will have at least that long to fuck up in different ways.
Somehow though I figure we’ll muddle through regardless. Hell, we survived Carter AND Bush II after all…
I think the GOP deserves a little more credit for consistency here.
Some in the GOP started bemoaning Bush’s bailout way back in September: AIG bailout upsets Republican lawmakers
IIRC, McCain took some fire for supporting it, and late in the year there were even hints of a revolt at the RNC: RNC draft rips Bush’s bailouts.
I don’t believe republicans supported Bush’s stimulus plan just because he is a republican. Remember, conservatives believe in lower taxes and were more than happy to get their money back. Also, if you remember correctly, there was anger among conservatives concerning tax rebates for those who do not pay federal income taxes.
Also, I’m not sure any conservatives really considered that a one-time rebate would do little to stimulate the economy (as opposed to a permanent tax cut). I think that conservatives would largely be opposed to a rebate for the purpose of stimulating the economy after the failure of Plan Bush.
Also, I think conservatives would get behind Obama if he proposed a tax cut as opposed to all this spending. But, again, this is a difference in philosophy between conservatives and liberals. So, it probably appears much more partisan than it really is.
Which Plan of Bush’s are you referring to? So far as I know the only plan he currently has is for a new kitchen.
If you’re talking about his early-00s stimulus packages,
Bush’s plans were far, FAR smaller than the current one. One may like apples but balk at eating a truckload.
Bush emphasized tax cuts, with the most benefit going to those paying the most taxes. Obama’s includes lots of spending, and many of the the tax cuts go to those already paying comparatively low taxes. Basic philosophical difference.
Frankly, there were plenty of economic conservatives who were no big fan of Bush’s rebates, but went along for political reasons
Of course there’s blind partisanship in play on all sides. That should probably be assumed.
Ow! That’s some low bars you’re hanging up there, x.
Yes, it’s partisan. The leadership in the party is still trying to figure out something that will work for them. Meanwhile they oppose…whether from principle or calculation.
This Republican liked neither plan. I would be willing to support a relief fund… and that’s about it. What needs to be cut is the legal code: a slimmer, more comprehensible code of laws and regulations would do far better than any econmic stimulus out there. Get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley (some sections, anyway): it was a badly written bill to begin with.
Rebuild the entire national government. Get rid of the Dept of Homeland Security. Break up the CIA into two or three smaller groups. Some groups, such as Treasury, do a good job. Others, such as the NEA, ought to be smaller. The Education Department should probably be a handful of people in a few offices checking to see if certain states got certain things done.
Sure…they are opposed to all the spending. There is no contradiction here. For conservatives, the amount of spending was too large for them to support.
Let me support this, too. I would like to see taxes cut to a more reasonable level, where true world-changing emergencies can allow us to increase them to pay for it, and where they will encourage even more growth. Spending more, even with tax cuts added in, is a bad idea because we will have to pay it back, and I sincerely doubt it will be spent on projects which will actually add significant growth.
And yet now a bunch of them are cheering to their constituents about a law they voted against. Usually the idea is that if you voted against a law, you’re unhappy that it was passed, not glad.
Not if A) You put your party and yourself before your country and B) You really think the new law is going to fall flat on it’s face and make the other party look bad.
The real porblem is that the during the Bush years we engaged in deficit spending despite the seemingly heady economic times, which is pretty much contrary what you would normally do. So when we end up in economic times that would require tax cuts and governemnt spending, you find that you have already spent a ton and cut taxes a ton and suddenly when you try to do more it seems “excessive”.
Make no mistake, it is partisan, plain and simple. The Republicans see their only hope for survival is being unified and contrarian, trying to regain what they think are their roots. There are plenty of stories of Republicans, especially in the House strong-arming some members into voting no because it was extremely important to them to get the zero next to their parties name.
As a means of cutting spending, axing the entire NEA budget is the equivalent of cutting a single NASA space shuttle flight. Discussing it in the context of budget reduction is like discussing personal fart prevention in the context of reducing one’s carbon footprint.
I’m not seeing the problem. If the Republicans are against the bill AND they stood together to try to defeat the bill, what is the problem with them bragging to their constituents? You can still be unhappy that it passed but celebrate that you voted correctly.
You can argue that, but it’s irrelevant. The NEA doesn’t do a paricularly useful job IMHO. I have no trouble with buying art, but let that come out of departmental budgets. And while its budget may be small… there’re only a couple shuttle launches a year and soon none at all. Small things and large.
Although if you want to know one of the large, I would overhaul the entire military procurement system. They keep blowing billions on weapon systems they wind up scrapping. And the process needs to be cut off from politicians, who keep pressuring them to buy crap from somebody’s home district.
If Al Gore was out there telling you not to eat beans in order to prevent global warming, you would rightly ask whether he was interested in stopping global warming or whether he just had something against beans.
