It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congressional Republicans Want Stimulus Bill to Fail

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I can't take credit for this theory. I heard the guy from Talking Points Memo talking about it on TV, and he's is the one who voiced it. But It's one of those things you just recognize as the truth when you hear it. I recognized this as a distinct probability and thought I'd post about it. He just mentioned it in passing, but I thought about it a while and fleshed it out.

We are hearing a lot about Congressional Republican's opposition to this bill, yet it had a lot of tax cuts and most Republican Governors across the nation LOVE this bill.

GOP Governors Press Congress to Pass Stimulus Bill



Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.
...
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, scheduled meetings in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.
...
But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.


After the bill passed, Congressional Republicans went to their states and bragged about the money they got for their district and state on a bill they had just voted against. John Mica (FL) had a press release gushing about his success, yet neglected to mention that he voted against it. So I can't help but wonder if they're really that opposed to the bill...

GOP Lawmakers Tout Projects in the Stimulus Bill they Opposed



Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.

"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.


Of course, reasons are given for why some GOP House member might be happy about part of a bill but not want to vote for the entirety of it, which is reasonable.

Further, I keep hearing TV News Journalists asking Congressional Republicans to name something in the bill that they disagreed with. And their responses are invariably either very general: "There was just too much pork and not enough stimulus" or they answer with something that would CLEARLY be stimulative (create jobs) but has the "feel" of pork. Say a railway in a certain state. When pressed about the "pork" being stimulative, they changed the subject to a dig about Obama's unwillingness to show bipartisanship and the circular argument could begin again...

So, if some House Republicans who voted against it are actually happy about it and the majority of Republican Governors supported it, and they can't really say what's so bad about it or specifically why they're against it, then WHY did the Congressional Republicans unite almost completely against it?

And the answer is: It was their only choice. Politically. There are four possible outcomes of the situation They could vote for or against it and the bill would either succeed or fail.

A. If they had voted for the bill, and it succeeded, they wouldn't really gain or lose any political points. It would just look like they joined together with Democrats and passed a good bill. That's what they're supposed to do. It's their job.

B. And if they voted for the bill, and it failed, they LOSE politically. Not only do their constituents see them as being "weak" by giving in to Democrats but they did it for a stupid reason and made a bad move.

So, the BEST they could do if they voted for it was to maintain, politically. But they would be taking a chance that they might lose points if it failed.

C. But if they vote against the bill, and it succeeds, the GOP will LOSE BIG, because Obama saved the world and they were against him all the way. They turned their backs on their constituents when they were needed most and would be seen as being stingy, uncaring elitists.

D. The only possibility is to vote against it and do everything to make it (and Obama) fail. That way, they voted against a failure and did the right thing politically and for the people.

They HAD to vote against it in solidarity and they have to continue to deride it and do everything to make it fail. even after it has passed to make sure the public think it fails, even if it doesn't.

So, that's why I think the Congressional GOP overwhelmingly voted against the bill and are continuing to generally criticize it and Obama for his part in it. They're hoping to make it look like a failure if it doesn't fail on its own. So, that's why I say they WANT it to fail. It will make their job a lot easier.

It's just a theory and I though it was pretty believable.


Any thoughts?

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Well, Could be that nobody had time to read the damned bill before it was voted on ?

Second, what does it matter... The Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass it.

Would YOU vote yes on a bill that you nor anyone else had time to read? Since most of the Republican voters are against bailout and stimulus plan would you vote directly against their wishes?

I call that political suicide... also, think if there was some insane provision in it an YOU voted yes to that is exactly a polar opposite ideal of your voting block. (say for example money for advertising pro-abortion commercials on TV, or Gun Control) You would loose your seat 100% guaranteed if something like that was in there and you voted Yes.

Sure, some guys might be happy they are receiving some expected benefit for their constituents but there is no way in hell I would vote on such a massive bill without knowing ALL the contents.

Anyone who voted yes without knowing what you are voting for is a fool.





[edit on 16-2-2009 by infolurker]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
We all know Republicans are good at being hypocrites, Benevolent Heretic. It's what they've done the last 8 years. I want to see a change from them...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I was personally hoping that it would not be voted in, but they really did an incredible rush job on this one. At this point we are merely delaying the inevitable....Our whole approach is wrong, but I digress...We will find out soon enough just how great this plan is, won't we?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Well, Could be that nobody had time to read the damned bill before it was voted on ?


I have been reading about this on the Internet and have had access to the various revisions of the bill on the Internet for a couple weeks now. It's been in the works and on the Internet in all its revisions for a month before the vote. I have been hearing on the news every little objection and speech and thought from the politicians and pundits about it.

How anyone can claim that they "didn't have a chance" to read it is absurd. I realize some may have chosen not to keep up on it, but that is their own choice. And whether someone voted for it or against it without reading it is a fault of that person alone.

Voting against it without reading it is as bad as voting for it without reading it. They should have been keeping up with this most important bill that they've known was coming for months now.

I take it you disagree with the theory, then.


[edit on 16-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Neither party has it quite right... Republicans want tax breaks to be a stimulus... which is impossible, because of the amount of debt we've gotten ourselves into...

Democrats want needless spending...

The answer would most likely lie in government subsidized manufacturing...

Our country is now service based... not too many manufacturers left around here...

Its been proven in the past, only manufacturing gets us out of economic hardships... (Wartime manufacturing in WWII for example).

Screw the banks, let them fail... work on getting our manufacturing sector healthy again.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Well, while I don't want to see wasted efforts, there's a huge difference between WANTING the bill to fail to live up to it's promises, it is another to know that it won't. So far what I have read is no Change at all. I don't think either political party really cares about this country. They've met political ideology with economics and that NEVER works.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Just playing devils advocate here, but where have you been the last 8 years? The Bush administration squandered our surplus and now you say the Dems want needless spending? Something doesn't sound right here.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by infolurker
Well, Could be that nobody had time to read the damned bill before it was voted on ?


I have been reading about this on the Internet and have had access to the various revisions of the bill on the Internet for a couple weeks now. It's been in the works and on the Internet in all its revisions for a month before the vote. I have been hearing on the news every little objection and speech and thought from the politicians and pundits about it.

How anyone can claim that they "didn't have a chance" to read it is absurd. I realize some may have chosen not to keep up on it, but that is their own choice. And whether someone voted for it or against it without reading it is a fault of that person alone.

Voting against it without reading it is as bad as voting for it without reading it. They should have been keeping up with this most important bill that they've known was coming for months now.

I take it you disagree with the theory, then.


[edit on 16-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



Hey, If you can truly tell me that everything single line item slipped into this bill has been on the internet for days, I will call you out openly as an exaggerator (to be nice).



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 





Just playing devils advocate here, but where have you been the last 8 years? The Bush administration squandered our surplus and now you say the Dems want needless spending? Something doesn't sound right here


What the?!?! This is supposed to justify it?

I'll scream from the highest damn mountain that Bush and Republicans blew it for 8 years.

Will that make all of you happy?

Is this some type of vindication for you?

Yep, let's just finish off the job Bush started.

Go team.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 

I'm just pointing out how these people say that the stimulus bill is so large, but, during the Bush years they never complained. They only hate it when the bill is supposed to do good things I guess, not things like war. I'm not in support of the current stimulus package, but, I'm just pointing out how silly it is that all these people are just talking about needless spending right now.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I will say this...I don't want it to fail, but I didn't want it in the first place. If they are going to forcefully enslave my children to taxes I'd like to at least see something happen.

But seriously, why kid myself? It won't. It's only going to hurt us more.
www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
For as long as I can remember,The Republicans have been the party of "Rule or Ruin". If they couldn't rule the country, screw up it up badly enough to make the people think the Democrats were incompetent. It's fairly easy to do and has in normal times few political downsides.

But these are new times, in ways that neither party truly understands. In a lot of ways, it's similar to what happens when a skilled collegiate player graduates to the NFL: no matter how skilled he is, the pro game is simply faster, more subtle, and more efficient than anything he's ever faced before. With the combination of the Internet, electronic banking, programmatic trading, and globalization all in varying stages of maturity, but all synergistic, economically things are happening faster, in more subtle ways, and more efficiently than they can comprehend.

Remember, most of the Senate came to maturity when TV was in its infancy (3, count 'em, 3 whole channels), personal computers undreamt of, and the Internet was a sci-fi fantasy. They don't understand how swiftly things can happen and so are a day late, a dollar short, and on a bus going the wrong way most of the time.

In the past whenever they soured one economy, there was another one somewhere else in good shape where they could ride out whatever misery they caused at home. Well, guess what? Bad economies went global, too, and now there's nowhere left to hide.

We are sooooo screwed.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
We all know Republicans are good at being hypocrites, Benevolent Heretic. It's what they've done the last 8 years. I want to see a change from them...
I believe that is what they are attempting to do, bring the party back to its founding principles, which is in stark contrast to the Bush Era ideology (thankfully).


[edit on 16-2-2009 by GuyverUnit I]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
We all know Republicans are good at being hypocrites, Benevolent Heretic. It's what they've done the last 8 years. I want to see a change from them...
I believe that is what they are attempting to do, bring the party back to its founding principles, which is in stark contrast to the Bush Era ideology (thankfully). Will it work.....?


I don't think it will ever have a chance, as the way things are going they are just going to make government even BIGGER and SHINIER. It is a hulking mass of crap and I honestly will be surprised if the whole works don't come apart within the next year or two here.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by nj2day
 


Just playing devils advocate here, but where have you been the last 8 years? The Bush administration squandered our surplus and now you say the Dems want needless spending? Something doesn't sound right here.


Sorry for the late reply... I was AFK...

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the liberal/conservative agendas... I was just stating that the stimulus as presented... does nothing to stimulate...

A stimulus bill, requires massive spending... BUT the areas the bill wants to put the spending, is pointless...

As far as a stimulus based off tax breaks... like the conservatives want... well, we can't relax our taxes... its not possible... the government NEEDS income... especially with the costs incurred from the takover of banks...

It is agreed as well, that the last 8 years of spending hasn't "stimulated" our economy... neither will this newest stimulous...

The government should have boosted manufacturing... They could have spent money on all those flack vests the military wants... they could build new naval ships and replace their older ones... They could build new jets... there's alot of manufacturing type jobs, that the government could have created by putting in a MASSIVE order to the automakers for say... maybe a new version of the hummer for military use...

We could be rebuilding roads... bridges... putting in a few new dams (like the hoover dam) to get us on alternative energy...

Currently, the money goes out and is wasted... and at the same time we're wasting money, we're slashing taxes...

Catch my drift? I hope I'm making sense lol I'm getting sleepy...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The reason the republicans voted against it is because they had nothing to do with writing it. Without the 3 republicans votes in the senate the bill could have been filibustered and never left the senate(which truly would have been political suicide. Only 30% is tax cuts and the reasoning was if the recession is only expected to last a year and a half, why double the debt to fix something that will fix itself. I suppose Bush has had 6 years of wasteful spending that included a terrorist attack, two wars, rebuilding a country, sending money to Indonesia after the tsunami, wildfires, tornado's, ice storms, a housing crisis, and let's not forget hurricane Katrina. Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since '06 and have blocked every Bush move except for the first bailout. I hope they left the 400 million for birth control out because we are going to need everyone of those unborn tax payers if we plan on getting out of this debt.
All the money is spent and we have zero wiggle room if something should happen. Obama has yet to even get settled into his new job and he already spent my grandchildren's money. At this point we should all be praying this works or people are in for a rude awakening.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Congressional Republicans Want Stimulus Bill to Fail


Gee, BH, and I thought you believed that we all need to work together to solve the country's problems, but now I find you want to continue to bash Republicans. That "we're all one country" didn't last very long for you, I guess.

Well, anyway, now that I understand it was only rhetoric, here are the facts:

The majority of Republicans voted AGAINST the original TREASONOUS bailout bill, even though Bush supported it. Bush betrayed the Republican principles long before the bailout bill.
The majority of Democrats voted FOR the treasonous bailout bill, even though Bush supported it.
The majority of Republicans voted AGAINST the "Stimulus" bill.
The majority of Democrats voted FOR the "Stimulus" bill.

Here is the real scoop:

Republicans are AGAINST government bailouts.
The Democrats are FOR bailouts.

Bailouts= Socialism = Disaster for Economies

When the economy continues to fail, as it will, Republicans won't be happy, BUT they will be able to say, "Don't Blame Us. We tried to warn you."

As long as you hang onto this partisanship, and others do the same, we will NEVER be one country.
That is exactly what the crooks want. Keep people busy fighting each other, instead of the problems that this country faces.

Socialism is failing around the world, as it failed in the USSR. The EU is in worse shape than the US, although as we continue the downhill rush towards socialism, we will catch up with them, or should I say "down" with them.

Here is what is really going on:

This "Stimulus" Bill is a trojan horse. One of the dirty little secrets regarding this bill is that it is stealing funds from the social security fund.
The $400.00 that each worker gets in tax credits is actually an elimination of the 6.2% social security tax on the first $6,500 of your income. This reduced social security tax is for two years. Social Security was supposed to go into the red around 2016. It will now go negative much earlier. This was planned, as the government knows that they cannot continue to pay out social security with a dwindling workforce, so they are going to break it sooner, so that they can then say they need to increase the retirement age, increase the tax, and decrease the payments to recipients. They don't have the guts to face this situation now, so they are forcing the issue.
www.nbcnewyork.com...

Under the provisions in the stimulus bill, states will once again be paid a bounty for expanding their welfare rolls. As reported by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, the federal government will now pay states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they sign up for welfare. That means that states will get $4 for every $1 they spend. This will leave the main welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with a funding mechanism similar to the one that supports Medicaid. As Brian Blase argues here, Medicaid’s funding ratio, which gives states $1 to $3 for every dollar they spend, has caused state Medicaid spending to skyrocket. If Medicaid’s dollar-for-dollar model has proved ruinous, Obama’s new $4-to-$1 ratio for welfare will prove, in all likelihood, four times so.

More welfare, LESS work. And Obama said that this bill would help CREATE jobs? Just the opposite. This bill ENCOURAGES people to go on WELFARE.


One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Let me put that in simple English(something the writers of the bill didn't do, because they don't want you to know what is really going on:

The government will decide WHETHER your life is worth saving, versus what it will cost to save your life. People will be reduced to a pure economic investment. If you're young, and capable of contributing to the wonderful socialist state, then you can have the health care procedure your doctor wants. On the other hand, if you are retired, and not contributing to the socialist state economically, you can die. I am not exaggerating. This is EXACTLY what Daschle talked about in his book.


The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

www.bloomberg.com...


Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

www.bloomberg.com...

In plain English, let the elderly die. Of course, Daschle and his crooks get to decide who lives and who dies. I'm sure that if you contributed to the right election campaigns, you'll be allowed to live.

People like Daschle are not very far away from Hitler and the Nazis.
I urge everyone to read the following, and then compare it to what Daschle says needs to be done with health care, and compare it to the provisions I stated above regarding government oversight. If this doesn't SCARE you, then you're missing the connections:

In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. Code named "Aktion T 4," the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records. Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or - mark in blue pencil under the term "treatment" on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a 'Children's Specialty Department' for death by injection or gradual starvation. The decision had to be unanimous. In cases where the decision was not unanimous the child was kept under observation and another attempt would be made to get a unanimous decision.


www.historyplace.com...


 

mod edit to fix links and trim quote


[edit on 16-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 17-2-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Further, I keep hearing TV News Journalists asking Congressional Republicans to name something in the bill that they disagreed with. And their responses are invariably either very general: "There was just too much pork and not enough stimulus" or they answer with something that would CLEARLY be stimulative (create jobs) but has the "feel" of pork. Say a railway in a certain state. When pressed about the "pork" being stimulative, they changed the subject to a dig about Obama's unwillingness to show bipartisanship and the circular argument could begin again...


You keep hearing...?
Cite your sources, quotes, persons, dates, times.
You are declaring these things, without citing any reputable sources, articles, or videos.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I posted here instead of the political forums because I had a conspiracy theory I wanted to get feedback on. But it seems most of you just want to fight. I'm not bashing Republicans. I'm talking about a small group of people, the Congressional Republicans ONLY.

I'm not going to respond to any political bickering because that's not what this thread is about.

Hopefully, I can read over this tomorrow and find something to discuss intelligently.

In any case, thanks for the responses.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join