I hope to God that either Obama was giving those zombies enough rope to hang themselves, or else that he at least wises up in a hurry. I always hated his post-partisan schtick, and if I found out that it was a con job from the beginning I'd be ecstatic. But he really seems to believe it.

It's like he planned his campaign with David Broder in 2000 or so and has stuck to the same plan ever since, ignoring the Bush Administration. He did succeed in co-opting the centrist fools in Unity 08, but at a terrible cost.

The Republicans and the finance people are strutting around like they're still in charge, but the Republicans lost the election and the finance people are beggars. I've never seen a beggar give an ultimatum as to what he's willing to accept before. The main thing those two groups need is a very hard landing, but Obama seems intent on saving them from that.

Let's be honest -- anyone with half a brain has long known these folks are ... as they are. Who is the real crazy one -- the people who want to always give tax cuts to the rich and will lie about everything, or the person who thinks they can be "bipartisan" with them?

The issue is not that Graham and McCain and Barnes are nuts. The issue is that they have dominated the news cycle because there haven't been enough strong Democratic voices to frame the issue correctly. How come?

Again and again, bipartisan means implementing the crappy, failed policies of the failed, losing minority party in spite of public opinion and support. Considering that Republicans have lived in their reality-free world for 8 years, I wonder how long it will take them to realize they lost.

Graham's complaint essentially boils down to "you didn't invite us to write the bill, which is what bipartisanship means." Seriously, what they are bitching about here is that they weren't invited to help draft the package, which would have offered them an earlier opportunity to harp on their one note: tax cuts good; everything else bad. Had they been included in the drafting, they could have prevented anything from ever making it to the floor of either house.

We already know what any package that would have garnered the support of the crazies would have looked like: 100% tax cuts for really, really rich people. Or some mix of tax cuts and spending for useless military hardware.

Again, Steve displays his lack of understanding bipartisanship & compromise!

From the Unabridged Dictionary of Republican-Speak:

Bipartisanship - Democrats give republicans everything they want.

True Bipartisanship - Democrats give republicans everything they want & apologize for not having done so sooner.

Hopefully Obama and his legislative team can find a way of preventing some Gang of X "moderates" from having the final say on a regular basis. That will be hard to do because Senators are more-or-less inlands unto themselves. Reid being a doormat doesn't help either.

Right from the Rethug playbook. Always complain about the other party and then do what you accuse them of doing. Then the bought and paid for MSM repeats it and makes it the truth. It is not quite 2 years and there will not be many of you elitist bastards left.

So -- when Obama gets two or three Republicans to sign onto something he wants, its not "true bipartisanship."

I guess that means that all of those bills that Bush pushed through with a handful of Blue Dogs plus Joe Lieberman or some other DINO senator weren't "truly bipartisan" either.

These three partisans you quote give the Marx Bros. a bad name. At least Groucho, Chico and Harpo used idiocy to illicit laughter. These three Republican goofs are tragically obstructing decent, needed legislation with their idiotic lame-brain economic voodoo! Not to mention their clasping at straw arguments on their merry-go-round of opposition to Americans' wants and needs as expressed in the last election.

Alas, Graham and McCain are scheduled for defeat in their next election cycle, and nobody of any kind of thoughtfulness even knows who Fred Barnes is anyway! -Kevo

Life is just a big Chicken Dance and the world is its Baked Potato. http://comics.com/agnes/

Considering the amount of patience that President(!) Obama has had with a united opposition party's patent attempts to make the President's initiative less likely to succeed, the GOP's cries are laughable enough. The memory I have which informs my personal ability to take their whining seriously, however, is the efforts of Rep. Thomas to include the Dems in Ways and Means committee meetings: don't tell the Dems about any meetings, and if they find out and show up, gavel them closed and run away. Now that was bipartisanship. Remember the good old days when Dems were kept out of Conference meetings? How seriously do we have to take these people? When will the MSM refuse to parrot obvious idiocy without comment simply because it comes from the opposition?

Your faithfull better get it done in two years. The voters are not as dumb as you percive.

I had to laugh when McCain compared this committee of "centrists" with the gang of 14, and said the difference was that the GO14 was 7 Dems and 7 Reps. He omitted the fact that none of the centrists agreed to act as a cohesive unit. In fact Olympia Snowe still hasn't agreed to vote with the "centrists" and Voinivich has dropped out. So this whole thing was about uniting Dems and 2 Reps.

I would argue that what the Reps got out of it was mostly elimination rather than addition. The Dems would have gone for the AMT dilution at some point, and the Isakson 15000 for new home buys will probably get kicked out in conference. Does anyone know of anything else that made the final cut that Reps would have voted for as a stand alone item?

I hope that Dems decide that if they can't get any Republicans to vote for a compromise bill, they should just write the bill that they know will work, take out the ineffective tax cuts and reintroduce it under the budget rules so it can't be filibustered. Harry Reid was right for once. A few "moderate" Senators should not be able to hold the whole country hostage.

Memo to John McCain:

You got your ass kicked in so many Red states, not to mention in the country at large, that your opinion on any subject other than how not to run for president is worthless.

Please John, sit down and shut up.

Just a bipartisan reminder, Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam.

What was priceless to me was wingnuts like Kyle and several others going out of their way on Teevee and the Senate floor to pooh pooh the notion that they were being ideological. Sometimes the bullshit piles up so deep you have to have to hold your nose and bodysurf to get around.

I think the GOP's Moe, Larry and Curly recognize the fundamental political shift that is occurring that will relegate their libertarian economic ideas to the dustbin of history.

The undeniable fact the GOP chooses to ignore is that historically unregulated, free markets go through boom and bust cycles every 15 years or so. FDR's intervention and regulatory regime largely stopped this for 50 years until Reagan, tired of government "inefficiency," began the Republican de-regulation program that led the economy into the ditch we're in today.

The interconnected nature of the world economy combined with our modern-day ability to accumulate and shift massive amounts of debt electronically backed up by nothing but air means that modern-day busts have far more dire consequences than during the Depression, which was pretty bad.

Obama has taken the controls of the Queen Mary and is beginning to turn the boat around, but ocean liners, like the US economy, don't turn on a dime. Watch for 10%+ unemployment before our problems begin to get resolved.

In the mean time let's find some abandoned coal mines in West Virginia for our Taliban Republican brothers and sisters where they can live on the run and get the full insurgent experience.

And the CBO stuff keeps rolling out of Drudge. Is this the same issue we've heard, except it is said to have come out of the CBO this Wednesday:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

I had cautious hope that Obama could motivate some bipartisanship, but the truth is that these Republicans are spoiled rotten, egocentric brats accustomed to having their way on everything. That is what Obama's sincere efforts have fully revealed, and you can't work with people like that because there is no reciprocity. The almighty tax cut is all they care about. End of story. I don't think most Americans hold Obama responsible for Republicans' very poor behavior at a time of deepening crisis. I've been trying to call Sen. Mitch McConnell's office for days, and either the phone just rings and rings, or the line is busy. I don't think McConnell wants to know what voters really think about the plan. They'd rather make up poll numbers and spin, spin, spin.
Everyone should try phoning his office:
202-224-2541

Don't forget, these are the guys to whom bipartisanship is just another term for date rape. That means it is a bad thing when you are in power and therefore the rapee and a good thing when you are out of power and the raper.

Any Republican politician who is complaining that the Democrats are insufficiently "bipartisan", who hasn't tried to drown Grover Norquist in a bathtub, can go f#%k him/her self. And that would be -- all of them.

Jennifer (and others) have it right: "Graham's complaint essentially boils down to "you didn't invite us to write the bill, which is what bipartisanship means." From 2000-2006, the Republic party demanded Democratic votes in the name of 'bipartisanship' even as they were gutting bills in conference, excluding Dems from all input, etc. Now they demand to draft the bills, gut them in negotiations, and final say on everything because they have 40% of the Senate. Nice work if you can get it!

I just wrote my senators (all Dems) that if the Republic party in the Senate filibusters this gutted miserable replacement bill, my senators should let it go down, so that everyone sees how it goes: the Republic party rejects the whole idea of stimulus, guts the bill, then filibusters anyway.

Then put a real stimulus into the budget.

The Repubs may then try to lock down the Senate by denying unanimous consent, by filibustering the few things they aren't already filibustering, etc. Reid never dared to be truly obstructionist in the Senate when the Dems were in the minority, or even after 2006, but the Republic jerks doubtless will dare. But that will quickly get VERY difficult for the remaining Repubs in blue states, and they might crack -- and in the process, the party may drive itself the rest of the way to self-destruction.

"I lived a decade with an NPD personality. Anything he did was only done if he reaped some recognition/attention reward for his own popularity with our friends. Behind closed doors the craziness continued until I thought I was going to loose my mind. He would twist and turn my words, his logic made no sense but that never stopped him. My point is some people are culls, dont bother trying to change them, dont change yourself to suit them. If you're in a relationship with one. GET OUT -- RUN HARD RUN FAST and never look back because that face you once cared for is only a farce, its a ploy to keep you as a plaything."
...
"I didn't know another human being could be so cruel, manipulative, deceptive and twist reality so much and just walk away like nothing ever happened. It has left me questioning myself, who I am as a person, fundamental laws of reality and life itself."
...
"Even now I find it difficult to fathom how you can give so much of yourself to a person and have them so totally wipe it all away as if it never happened with no remorse and go on their merry way leaving a path of destruction behind them."

These are quotes from a NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER Support Group for people who have been in relationships with NPD personalities.

Does that ring a bell?!?!

Of course these are accounts from personal relationships, but can be extrapolated to the current relationship between the Republicans and Democrats with the Republicans being the NPD in this case. As many survivors suggest, absent the possibility of escaping their influence altogether, you need to take a hard line - calling them on their bs and sticking to your own stable version of reality - with these types. There is no negotiating in good faith them. They are crazy. Compromising makes you slightly insane.

Flev Said:

"there haven't been enough strong Democratic voices to frame the issue correctly. How come?"

Number 1. Because Obama still generally communicates by reading a teleprompter and doesn't engage in details.

Number 2. The bill was loaded up with special interest spending after Obama promised that there would be no pork in this bill. I agree that the republicans tired old refrain of " tax cuts" sounds hollow, but the special interest spending is same ole same ole as well. When you realize that there will be more gigantic spending to shore up banking and thousing - well the size of this is just plain scary. At least we can expect the congress to focus on stimulus before SDS disease prevention etc, etc.

The bill was loaded up with special interest spending after Obama promised that there would be no pork in this bill. - Mary Ok

Would those special interests and pork include food stamps, NASA, Coast Guard, Prisons, Education, the COPS program. This is what they were talking about cutting out, yesterday. They were talking about adding in Military spending and STAG Grants (Indian Tribes). So did they take out the pork or ADD it?

At least we can expect the congress to focus on stimulus before SDS disease prevention etc, etc.

First off, if your going to mock something as important as Sexually transmitted disease, at least get the acronym right, it STD.

And second, any spending not going to rich people is considered "special interest" to wingnuts, or People who already have enough money to buy anything they want. You need to tighten up some, your right wing talking points, Mary. OK!

Oh and I almost forgot, at least Obama can read and pronounce words correctly. A skill lacking in your Bush.

remember that the republican party exists to serve business. anytime business takes a back seat to the people they (r's) aren't happy. include $300 billion in corporate tax cuts then they would be happy.

... Because Obama still generally communicates by reading a teleprompter ...

Feh! At least Obama can read the freakin' teleprompter.

It's time to start going on the offensive. Criminal investigations on all the vile shit that Bush and cronies performed for the past eight years. Maybe that'll give these repulsicans something to be occupied with while the country is returned to it's former greatness by responsible people.

These Dems have apparently not learned a thing during the last 30 years of basically Repug leadership. The Repugs do not in any way want the situation in our country to improve, period... They will lie, cheat, and pontificate on how patriotic and good they are and how immoral and elite the Dems are. I am sorry to say that I see no redeeming qualities in the Repug portion of Congress and very little in the Dem portion. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BIPARTISAN IN THE MINDS OF REPUBLICANS.

Obama made a fundamental miscalculation when he broke the ice and offered the olive branch to Republicans at the start of this whole process. He assumed that the seriousness of the times would lead Republicans (and Democrats, too, lets be fair about this) to put aside partisan maneuvering for advantage and address the financial crisis directly, seriously and in good faith -- much as Democrats did with Bush after 9/11, until Rove turned even 9/11 into a wedge issue. The President thought, in short, that one good turn deserved another.

What he did not count on was the ease with which Republicans could turn even bi-partisanship to partisan advantage by making themselves the arbiters of what bi-partishansip meant. Bi-partisanship takes two to play, after all, and if Republicans decide that they can twist the president's willingness to work with them and listen seriously to their concerns into a lead-pipe guarantee that the Republican position will prevail, then there is little Obama can do beyond what he has begun to do -- point out that Republicans are creating gridlock at a time of national peril to protect their conservative ideology and legacy.

If Republicans complain about the lack of Democratic bi-partisan warm fuzzies, who can really challenge them? Love is in the eye of the beholder. It's easy for the GOP to say that Obama is a fake not matter how sincere he might really be. They might say that Obama pretends to listen to but then let Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats go off on their own to craft a bill without one Republican in the room. That may be pretty standard legislative process to those of who know the system, but it's easy for Republicans and opportunists like Gingrich on Fox to paint Obama's desire for bi-partisanship as an insincere play for advantage. That was always the danger for Obama in being the first to reach out a hand.

But remember what we are comparing Democratic entreaties of Republicans to. When Republicans were in power, and Tom DeLay called the shots, partisanship went way beyond not letting Democrats touch the agenda. Democrats were not allowed to offer amendments to bills on the House floor. They were not given bills in advance to study. They were denied appointments to the conference committees where the real work between the House and Senate happens -- in violation of most basic ancient and honored legislative practices and traditions.

Bi-partisanship does not mean, as Republicans seem to think, that a minority party that was thoroughly repudidated by the American people in two consecutive national elections and is little more than a hollow Southern shell of its once glorious self, gets to call the shots. Nice try Republicans, but no dice.

Let's give Republicans their due. They are masters at controlling the terms of the debate. But do remember: It's relatively easy in a behemoth stimulus bill like this for conservatives to keep public attention focused on abstractions and trivia -- its incredible size, the weird provisions that look like they belong in the government waste hall of fame, irrelevant ideological sideshows such as the charge that Democrats are merely using this crisis to "ram through" their "partisan social agenda," disconnected with the specifics of what the stimulus actually does. But as long as Republicans can keep the debate focused on abstractions and sheer politics, they win. The moment the debate turns to concrete specifics they lose, which is why Obama and Democrats need to do what they are already doing -- bring the debate back to earth. They need to emphasize again and again what is at stake and what is really happening. Keep the focus on the forest not the trees.

The economy is heading south because demand has. People are not spending, that's the problem. Tax cuts on investment profits are stupid at this time because without spending there are no profits to tax. That makes sense to most people, which is why Republicans only want to talk about "Big Government" and "Tax and Spend Democrats." Slogans not solutions.

We've got a $2 trillion gap in demand that needs to be filled, and we are not going to fill that with tax cuts. The Republican darling Enron is a perfect symbol here. Enron lasted for years at the top of the Blue Chip hill as a company that made billions selling nothing but air. That's what we'll get with a Republican stimulus package consisting of nothing but capital gains tax cuts at a time when consumer spending is falling through the floor.

If Republicans want to argue that spending federal money to help a middle class kid go to college constituttes "ramming" through a liberal social agenda over the objections of those same middle class families -- then let them. Let Republicans dig their own grave. But Republicans will never let the debate shift to specifics because they know its a loser for them in the public relations war. They don't want folks to know that what Republicans really mean by the "liberal social agenda." They don't want you to know it means giving jobs to middle class families out of work, helping kids going to college, providing day care so moms can work, laying the foundations for the new industries of the 21st Century to get us off our dependence on oil, and rebuilding infrastucture to make up for 30 years of Republican neglect.

No, that's definately not what Republicans want to talk about, which is why when pressed they can only come up with a paltry $20 billion or so of items -- 1% of the total -- that sounds like waste, fraud and abuse. That, and familiar mantras about how Americans can spend their money better than government can. Republicans from Congressional leaders to talking heads on FOX will beat this drum til we're deaf hoping the rest of us will be so distracted and confused we'll forget what this whole stimulus debate was about, anyway.

The Republicans had no problem giving taxpayer money away to banks and financial institutions. When it came to saving working peoples' jobs and the economy - not so much. I'm surprised less has been made of this.

Anything that John McCain says should not be taken seriously, he is now a very old man and totally out of place. Hopefully Obama will not give him further recognition.

Sen. Graham was put down by Sen. Webb on a TV talk show. Once again he was recently put down by Sen. Boxer. Will the trifecta be completed soon?

"Republicans from Congressional leaders to talking heads on FOX will beat this drum til we're deaf hoping the rest of us will be so distracted and confused we'll forget what this whole stimulus debate was about, anyway."

Excellent summation of the situation. We need to push back and put them on the defensive for voting against ordinary people and families.

Obama is reaching out to Republicans but the desperate, no-nothing libertarian Republican policy makers are slapping Obama in the face.

There needs to be an appropriate punishment for these Reagan-era hangers-on. Public ridicule is a good start but something more substantive is needed. Something that undermines their base and credibility back home. These GOP obstructionists need to learn to compete in the world of real ideas, not their inside-the-beltway, tax-cut-and-deregulation-solves-everything la-la land. Their ideas may play well with those khaki-wearing nancy boys at the Heritage Foundation but not out in The Real America where Real Americans still make and do things worth paying for.

We are in the ditch because of poor GOP leadership these last eight years. They just want to pull everyone else in with them because they are too stubborn to abandon a failed ideology that their crumbling, regionally based party has become so closely identified with. The fact that they think an inarticulate former sports-announcer-turned-governor can save them shows how desperate they are.

I'm all for giving the GOP a hand up out of the ditch but if they insist on staying down and bringing others with them they need to understand that stupidity has serious consequences -- for the country as well as for them personally. Target the Senators and reps that had close races with ads debunking GOP economic theory and promoting the stimulus. Get moveon supporters flooding the GOP's inboxes and voice mail.

Short of that, how about a carbon emissions tax on all the hot gases emitted by the Republican Caucus Room, the Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union and the Premier Radio Networks studio in Florida that broadcasts Rush Limbaugh? Cash only -- no cap and trade.

Republicans, by adopting the mentalities of the Taliban, are only trying to demonstrate some good-faith "bipartisanship" with America's enemies.

Danp Thanks your comments!
I want to see spending that supports job creation in the private sector. Some of the spending, while worthwhile, won't stimulate job creation in the private sector. Of course, many of us understand that some of the money will go to recreation programs which will keep the crime rate from spiking, will go to keep police employed, or a variety of social goals. Still, to the extent we dont have private sector employment, we can't afford these programs. Nothing new and creative has come out of either side. I am out of work, and very little either side proposes is going to help me and the spendng is so high, it is likely to hurt, to the extent I am going to pay for it.

From a communication standpoint, the democrats have not addressed the extent to which this bill supports private sector job creation. I guess that is because it doesn't.

42% of the bill is for tax cuts, largely payroll taxs paid by working poor. They will spend that money quickly, though smarter people than i have pointed out long term problems with this. The GOP opposes this because they are wedded to supply side economics and trickle down bullshit that has caused this deep problem we have. They, and sounds like you, still believe that just putting more money in the pockets of big business will create jobs. We've been doing that, and only that, for the past 16 years and look what it's provided. NOTHING.

The other important facet of our economy is the demand side. Which largely consists of concentrating on developing new markets for new products to generate new jobs. IE Green Jobs, or research for energy alternatives, and new frontiers in health and medicine. Most of the bill goes toward that goal. But also short term cash that will be spent into the economy such as the payroll taxcut, food stamps, infrastructure projects, construction etc..... And I realize there are items in the bill that won't create jobs
, but they are only about ONE percent of the bills cost.

There is no magic wand or guarantee, but the broad choices are basically three in number. We can follow the demand stimulus initiatives dems are doing, we can continue the right wing trickle down theory of Bush et al, or we can do nothing.

I might suggest for you to watch a little less Fox News propaganda, and broaden your horizons a little. And you are doing that coming here.

From a communication standpoint, the democrats have not addressed the extent to which this bill supports private sector job creation

And I don't entirely disagree with this. Maybe because they're not sure themselves. But again the three choices are about all we have to go on currently. My choice is trying something new.

Steve Benen wrote: "Between sanity and craziness, there is no common ground."

It has nothing to do with "sanity" or "craziness". It has to do with interests.

The Democrats are trying to pass a bill that addresses the interests of middle class and working class people (who are increasingly indistinguishable), and the Republicans want a bill that addresses the interests of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

The Republicans are not "crazy". The Republicans are waging class warfare on behalf of their owners, America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. Their rhetoric sounds "crazy" because it is all bullshit, spewed by con artists who are looking to bamboozle the gullible rubes.

You know what Mary, it doesn't matter if this bill creates even one private sector job. If all the bill did was pay people to dig up holes and other people to fill them in - it would still be stimulus and it would still be better than paying sociopaths to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis.

Since the Republicans have wasted trillions on the latter, it is time for them and their apologists to shut the fuck up. They have demonstrated just how little they understand of governance and how little concern they have for human life.

When you can talk about the horror of wasting trillions dragging the American brand through the muck and mire of Iraq, then you can have some input on the stimulus. Until the...well, it shouldn't need to be said again.

It is humorous listening to Republicans advocate "bipartisanship." In 1995, when the Republicans under Gingrich, Armey and DeLay controlled the House for the first time in forty years, not only did they completely ignore the Democratic leadership, they refused to give the Blue Dogs the time of day. Bills they won by one or two votes could easily have been won by thirty or forty with small concessions, but Republicans never took that path.

Moreover, with the exception of Martin Frost, all of the victims of DeLay's mid-decade redrawing of district lines in Texas were Blue Dogs.

As kindly demonstrated upthread ... the country finally has a President who can read, and some people really hate him for it.

They seem to want to shatter the entire country forever because they themselves did badly in elementary school. They'd probably add that they're proud of it, if "proud" weren't such a long and strange-looking word.

But that will quickly get VERY difficult for the remaining Repubs in blue states, and they might crack -- and in the process, the party may drive itself the rest of the way to self-destruction.

I doubt it and I think I know why. If, say, Olympia Snowe votes with the Dems, she's been quietly informed that she will a) not get any campaign money from the RNC, and b) face a primary challenge from a true wingnut (and she will have to spend money to win the primary).

Well said!!!!!!!!!! The GOP just cannot break loose from there bankrupt theory of trickle down tax cuts for the rich from the god of the party Ronald Reagen. That period of time is irrelevant to the smartened people who have been hit with these type of lies. The only way out is to rebuild the middle class by Obama's BUBBLE UP ECONOMY!

Let's get real and understand that Limbaugh and his elk are just bafoons for entertainment to the weak minded!

Thanks the one and Stuck:

Unfortunately, for many of us, it does matter if private sector jobs are created. That's the perspective of the average guy who is neither a progressive or a conservative. I also appreciate your comments on what George Bush has done to the American brand by his superficial understanding of global politics. But Bush is gone now, and the problem at hand is job creation, neither party has my confidence on this matter.

I don't really buy the tax cuts arguments of the republicans, and if it is all they have to offer, it's not enough. But social program spending is not new. I'm not rich, but I'm not poor and I can't see any of this money coming to my community, which is burdened by high taxes on every front. The grass in the national landmark parks in my village is a disgrace, but people don't want to increase taxes to improve it and I'll be damned if we are going to pay for new grass in the National Mall - which is also a disgrace, when we've made decisions in our own community that is a luxury we have to live without.

This is signature legislation for the new administration and it only confirmed my lack of confidence in democratic leadership. Couldn't discipline themselves to craft a focussed bill that said something coherent on the economony to the American people. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault. It just doesn't inspire me that we are going to fare well in a global economy for several generations. Either the talent of our elected officials is insufficient or the problems insurmuntable at the moment.

I am not a watcher of Fox News. I watch the financial channels, and frankly even Chris Matthews has been questionning Obama's ability to communicate on this bill and it general on anythng without a telepromter. Unfortunately. no democrat has done much better. And I won't buy the 1% figure without an itemized list of expenditures. Anyway, I am sure re sodding the lawn in the national mall provides some stimulus, but like I said, our community isn't resodding our historic parks. It's not the kind of job creation we want to afford.

I'm not rich, but I'm not poor and I can't see any of this money coming to my community, which is burdened by high taxes on every front.

What state do you live in that's planning to refuse the federal funds earmarked for them in the stimulus bill? Or is the problem that you don't see the money coming directly into your bank account, so therefore any money that goes to your state, county or city is by definition "not coming to your community."

The grass in the national landmark parks in my village is a disgrace, but people don't want to increase taxes to improve it and I'll be damned if we are going to pay for new grass in the National Mall - which is also a disgrace, when we've made decisions in our own community that is a luxury we have to live without.

So, again, if stimulus money is not deposited directly in your personal bank account, as far as you're concerned it doesn't exist at all. Building schools and repairing roads and bridges in your state? Well, you never drive on those specific bridges, so the bridge repairs are of zero benefit to anyone since they don't help you specifically, right?

I know you Republicans have gotten into a mindset that something that doesn't directly profit each of you personally is of no benefit at all to anyone, but you've really got to get over this selfish mindset that if that dollar is not going directly into your pocket, no one in your town should be allowed to get one either.

SecularAnimist at 12:53PM nailed it. Hiding behind the traditional conservative/absolute free enterprise paradigm is a selfish, criminal, sociopath or rapacious corporation. The fact that he/she has internally, willfully forsaken all other perspectives doesn't absolve them. We don't automatically consider a bank robber mentally ill; why should it be any different if the robber is the president of the bank?

The term crazy is too vague to carry any weight. Steve Martin is a wild and crazy guy.

A professional blogger with higher aspirations has to be careful not to permanently alienate powerful interests or appear too strident and inflexible, at least until hard left haranguers prosper ala Limbaugh, et al.

Mnemosyne
I am not a republican. I support the infrastructure improvements in the bill because they are serious job creation measures and these roads, bridges, and dams are so poorly maintained they are dangerous. These improvements are long overdue and you have to wonder why we needed a crisis to address them. As I understand it though, these measures are only about 12 % of the bill.

Some of the money might go into my personal bank account - in terms of unemployment insurance. Thanks very much. Still, I would rather have a job.

Please don't paint people who object to components of this bill as selfish republicans. I already pay a ton for services I never use. I pay through the nose for property taxes for schools in my community, but I have no children. I pay through my federal and state taxes for schools in other communities that can't raise the minimum funding through their own taxes. I pay county taxes for various services that I hope I never have to use, which should be easy if I don't committ any crimes. I don't qualify for any property tax caps because I am not poor, but that means I pay some else's share who can't pay. I pay the highest sales tax in the nation - to pay for defined benefit pensions with COLAs for public officials, when private industry pensions moved to defined contribution at least a decade ago and never had a COLA.

We have tons of foreclosures in my community. Still, though, I doubt seriously if much in the bill addresses the vacancies here. We've had squatters move in accross the street and trashed a house which is frankly an eyesore. Still, my guess is that it will be the resources of this community that pull us through this, rather than anything in this particular bill. We all know that more money is going to be spent to address housing and banking. The size of these bills should have everyone staggering. I understand that we need much of it, but we should be insisting that 90% to 95% of any expenditures provide maximum bang for the buck. One economist already suggested that there should be two bills - one for short term and one for longer term spending - but then it might be too hard to hide typical democratic special interest spending or just plain pork. I don't agree with Obama that the perfect is the enemy of the good. One hundred percent perfection is a waste of time and resources, but without 90%, well I've never seen anything execute effectively that doesn't have attention to detail that covers about 90% of a plan.

I think many people wanted to see a bill largely for job stimulus and not the christmas tree of spending that would be passed by any congress with a democratic majority. Those of us who lived through and supported the Great Society agenda understand the limitations of such spending. With the loss of jobs due too all sorts of reasons, many of us want to see that our money creates something long lasting and perhaps can help mitigate some of the income redistribution that doesn't change anything.

This was all pretty predictable from the start: The Republicans decided long ago it was not in their political interests to support a stimulus package, and so naturally they are going to wail about Obama's "failed bipartisanship" to cover their partisan opposition. That's how the cynical game is played.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to have held on a bit too long to his own opening gambit, which was to embrace "bipartisanship" as a tool for building up his approval ratings, which could then be used to intimidate opponents of the package.

The problem with Obama's strategy was that the Republicans were perfectly willing to concede Obama's personal popularity and then attack the package anyway -- sensing, correctly, that the two were not linked. All those years of demonizing big gummint and big gummint waste still have residual PR value, even in the middle of a whopping big crisis of corporate capitalism.

One can hope that Obama and Co. have learned their lesson and now understand the need to counterpunch -- below the belt, if necessary.

The upcoming conference committee offers an opportunity to do so, by leaning on the Senate negotiators to add back the needed spending (particularly the aid to dependent states) vetoed by Maine's GOP Bobbsy Twins.

Then the final House and Senate votes (the point at which Obama and his bully pulpit will have maximum leverage) can then be defined in very simple terms: You're either for the package or against the economy.

If Obama squeezes hard at that point, I think we will be surprised by the number of Republican votes he will get, particularly in the Senate.

Hey Stuck.

Why does everyone on this web - site assume that anyone who disagress with this bill is a republican? In an earlier post, you said "your Bush". I didn't vote for him ever. I read his resume. He failed up. Couldn't run an oil company but got promoted anyway. I voted for Gore and feel he genuninely would have been a great Presidetn. I voted for Kerry, but have decided he would only have been marginally more effective than Bush. Different policies perhaps, but in the end lacking what it takes to create any change. I truly hope Obama is better than his resume.

I am so disappointed in democratic leaders like our latest limosine liberal - Tom Dashle, that I've decided it's unamerican to be anything other than an Independent. Any body who votes straight party either isn't capable of independent thought, hasn't grown up, or has some sort of vested interest. It just doesn't make sense to me that one party or the other is always right on every issue.

This, however, isn't "true" bipartisanship, presumably because the far-right is still unhappy.

And hey, we on the left aren't happy either, so I guess it's a nonpartisan bill!

Mary OK

Maybe it's your use of GOP Talking POint code words, like say, special interest spending, programs of this and that kind, with a tinge of sarcasm. Or use of "limosine liberal", and a general hostility to government being able to create positive change, that democrats believe it can if managed correctly.

This tells me, if your not a card carrying winger, then you are spending way too much time listening to their ideas. Plus, you focus in on a tiny part of the bill that contains so called "pork" like STD prevention, which is offensive to most liberals who don't consider that pork. And you focus in on small dollar projects and skim past the big dollar initiatives like energy and health research, that will at some point create the next wave of growth and jobs in our country. We've been watching wingnuts do this all week, and react accordingly when it shows up on progressive blogs.

As far as the infrastructure at 12 percent of the bill, I'll bet that it is increased in conference, as will there be changes in the bill in general . It's a process that isn't over, and won't be over after this bill gets signed.

And finally, I believe Obama said there would be no earmarks in the bill, which is defined as spending that is added without a vote. There are no earmarks. Everything in the bill gives the opportunity for debate and voting.

Yes, I spend more time listening to the other side these days. MSNBC got so one sided, I had to go elsewhere. CNN does a mutch better job of airing both sides but they havn't given any serious coverage to the two items you mention. I watch the financial channels now - because they tend to focus more on facts and less on personality and party. I decided to subscribe to the wall street journal - to get real figures. It is clear that papers that are going broke like the New York Times are slanting their presentations of the news to appeal to a demogrpahic that might help them stay in business.

I understand that there are some health care and energy inititatives in this bill, but there is precious little info about them on MSNBC, CNN or the financial channels - including the amount of money allocated. Maybe if so much little garbage hadn't been added, the important measures would be clearer. Maybe these initiative themselves are controversial and these other issues were added to keep health care and environmental initiatives from being evaluated. Hell, even Chris Matthews questioned someone about the job creation potential of the money going to hollywood. This just looks bad to the public and they don't seem so tiny. and we know there are issues with the TARP money and we are about to pass TARP II after this.

While you say I've focussed on the small component of the bill that is not job creation, you haven't said I'm wrong about them. If republican outlets have been so effective at publicizing these, why haven't Democratic outlets been effective at extolling the initiatives on health care and the environment in this bill? Possibly because they are too small, or possibly because they start the debate on national health care prematurely. Anyway, I don't know too many people in the health care industry that have been laid off lately. It's a growing sector , given the aging population. Chances are with National Health care, many jobs will disappear. The goal is to lower costs and it is a labor intensive business.

Yes, I have grown hostile to government's ability to create positive change. I am sure if managed correctly, it can be done, but I doubt if most people in congress, espcially Senators, want to manage anything. Shouldn't Kennedy resign for health reasons? Chris Dodd - did he really do his best to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? And finally, the language used on this board to characterize people who disagree with them - wingnut, rethuglicans, assuming everyone who is skeptical of congress as being a Bush lover.

I have little respect for most democrats in congress and in my state of Illinois. They are not public servants and Obama wasn't a public servant when he served. He largely didn't show up and he avoided controvery. Let's hope he proves to be such a transforational leader that he was right not to waste his time. Tom Daschle is such an important man that he needs a limo and a driver to effectively advise lobbyists how to lobby. Yes, I concede that we need something done about health care, but based on what I've seen on CNN about the Canadian system, it will be underfunded and undermanned. And Tom Dashle, made wealthy by lobbyists seeking taxpayer dollars, was slated to tell me to spend more for less health care.

The public's hostility to this bill is not about being anti stimulus or anti Obama, it is about being anti Congress. Congress should be aware that they are being watched. The dems were just arrogant, stupid, or resistant to change, to throw in non stimulus items. Yes, the republicans are behaving like do nothings devoid of new ideas. But some times, doing nothing is the wisest action. At least in the terms of the debate on this bill, the republicans didn't do a thing but point out what was done by the people who drafted this bill. And because Obama did not give specifics on the ineffective tax cuts the republicans wanted, he didn't get his message across - and aren't some of those tax cuts democratic ones for the working poor?

"The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes added, "Republicans got nothing in the bill."

Is Fred Barnes nuts or just a liar?

The last I heard, many owners of small to medium-sized businesses are Republicans, and some of the ones I know are watching their customer base shrink as unemployment rises.

Tax cuts might provide some relief for these business owners, but what about their customer base?

So, when Barnes says that "Republicans got nothing in the bill," to which Republicans is he referring, because it is quite obvious that the corrupt lobbyist/corporatist Republicans in Washington don't give a damn for the mom and pop Republicans spread out across our land, neither the owners of small to medium-sized businesses nor all the working, 9 to 5 Republicans, and their families.

Any economic recovery, in any country, must first maintain jobs, and then job creation to offset the jobs already lost can take place.

The Republican "plan" not only doesn't create jobs, it doesn't maintain the jobs already present, which can only lead to further mass lay-offs and even more squeezing of small to medium-sized businesses (owned by many non-Washingtonian Republicans), causing further lay-offs, and more squeezing, and further lay-offs, and more squeezing, etc, just like what happened between 1929 and 1933 under Herbert Hoover, which led to +25 percent unemployment levels being handed off to FDR.

We are seeing a repeat of exactly the same damn thing from almost 80 years ago, but today.

One has to wonder why msot Republicans in Washington and certain "centrist" Democrats hate our democracy and American workers so much?

Mary: Regarding your claim that Obama, when an Illinois legislator, didn't show up to vote: that is utter hogwash. I live in Illinois and work is the Legislature and you are spewing some talking point that is patently untrue. More utter hogwash from you when you write that the Democrats threw in "non-stimulus items" into the bill. Name one, I dare you.

I am sick and tired of people like you who like to wax on and on about the ineffectiveness and incompetence of our elected Democratic officials yet you can't take the time to inform yourself on important issues and instead elect to resort to distortions and lies.