Threats for going against the party...

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

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[KSig RC]

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

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...

"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)?

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

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...

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?

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

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!!!

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.

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

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

OK?

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

"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?

[Kevin]

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

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. 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.

[MysticCat]

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

Oh, ok KSig RC, I am sorry, i forgot that I am not allowed to have an opinion...

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.

Lord forgive me for thinking that yes, we need to act now, and yes, we need to act together not separately.

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?

[KSigkid]

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

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?

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?

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

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

[MysticCat]

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[CrackerBarrel]

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.

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

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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...

[CrackerBarrel]

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

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.)

[KSig RC]

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

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...

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.

[DGTess]

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

What I am saying, you should not be punished for crossing party lines... 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...

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.

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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...