3 ms·

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/674/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/vote... If you're interested in how

by Harkins 18y ago

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/674/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/vote... If you're interested in how specific Representatives voted, we (I work at the Post) grabbed the data before house.gov keerashed.

SwellJoe 18y ago
I'm surprised by the vote tallies. Democrats voted 140 yes and 95 no, while Republicans voted 65 yes and 133 no. So, either Republicans (in the House) have more integrity than I'd given them credit for lately (and more than Democrats, on the whole), or I have less understanding of the bill than I thought I did. Also, the Washington Post is either a little bit batshit crazy, or they have a strange sense of humor: You can sort the results by astrological sign. If you really wanted to have one more sorting type...the length of time in office would be more interesting to me (and not indicative of being ready for a quiet retirement with fewer disturbances in life).
- arockwell 18y ago
  I think a simpler line of reasoning is that the Democrats have a bit more control over the bill, and have been able to get in terms that Democrats favor more than the Republicans have been able to.
  - LostInTheWoods 18y ago
    The Democrats have the majority in both houses and could pass the bill without the Republicans if they wanted. They don't do that because they want consensus, especially so close to the election.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    The issue is that from my understanding, it's a really bad bill. I think it shows a striking lack of character to vote for a bad bill because it happens to contain some earmarks or other terms you (and your biggest contributors) happen to like. The older I get, the more I realize that character in politicians is far more important than ideology. Decent people can disagree on the right way to solve the problems our nation faces, including this (very large) one...but lining the pockets of supporters at the expense of everyone else in the nation, particularly those least able to protect their assets, strikes me as a despicable and crassly self-serving act. The only way to a solution that most everybody can agree on is to honestly discuss the issues. With a bill named "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes" that hands $700 billion (actually more...) over to a fellow who'll be doling it out to all of his old buddies from the finance industry with no oversight, we've already established that no sane discussion can take place. It's classic doublespeak on the order of the best the Soviets and Red Chinese ever came up with, and that duplicity in and of itself is enough to disqualify this bill from consideration by honest folks. This is actually a prime example of why I genuinely like Ron Paul. I disagree with him on some major issues (immigration and abortion being the biggest), but I know where he stands, and I know he believes in what he says and acts accordingly. I think I'd like to see a lot more of that, from any side of the political spectrum. But, it seems like crooked Republicans get voted out only to be replaced by crooked Democrats. I'd be happy with a batch of honest Democrats or a batch of honest Republicans, but it seems the only way to keep them close to honest is to keep churning new people in, keep the parties roughly in balance, and keep them at each others throats so they can do the least amount of damage possible.
    - arockwell 18y ago
      The bill is quite a bit toned down from how you described it (afaik). You're talking about the initial version of it, which I thought was absolutely horrible. The version that was voted on today seemed quite a bit better (more oversight, some limits on executive pay, not all the money is paid out at once among other provisions...), but I just think that the core of the bill is simply not a good idea.
      - chaostheory 18y ago
        oversight by 2 small committees who can be bought isn't enough oversight - all transactions need to be made available to the public. Not to mention that while payments would be made in installments, there was still no cap.
        arockwell 18y ago
        Thanks, I wasn't too aware of exactly what had changed. I didn't realize that the transactions would not be made available to the public, that seems insane.
- newt0311 18y ago
  From what I heard, Peloisi gave a startlingly bad speech before putting the bill up for a vote. Something along the lines of how this was all the fault of Bush and his policies and then she tried to tie this to the federal deficit. Not sure. I need to find a copy and read it to get a better idea. Even without that speech, there was a lot in this bill to dislike. Namely, giving the sec. of the treasury a check of $700 billion with absolutely not controls is a patently idiotic thing to do.
- Harkins 18y ago
  It's "strange sense of humor". The original creators of the app thought it was funny. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't waste ink to put astrological bullshit in the paper every day. (Length of time in office would indeed be pretty cool. I'll run it by Politics.)

by Harkins 18y ago

SwellJoe 18y ago

I'm surprised by the vote tallies. Democrats voted 140 yes and 95 no, while Republicans voted 65 yes and 133 no. So, either Republicans (in the House) have more integrity than I'd given them credit for lately (and more than Democrats, on the whole), or I have less understanding of the bill than I thought I did. Also, the Washington Post is either a little bit batshit crazy, or they have a strange sense of humor: You can sort the results by astrological sign. If you really wanted to have one more sorting type...the length of time in office would be more interesting to me (and not indicative of being ready for a quiet retirement with fewer disturbances in life).

arockwell 18y ago
I think a simpler line of reasoning is that the Democrats have a bit more control over the bill, and have been able to get in terms that Democrats favor more than the Republicans have been able to.
- LostInTheWoods 18y ago
  The Democrats have the majority in both houses and could pass the bill without the Republicans if they wanted. They don't do that because they want consensus, especially so close to the election.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  The issue is that from my understanding, it's a really bad bill. I think it shows a striking lack of character to vote for a bad bill because it happens to contain some earmarks or other terms you (and your biggest contributors) happen to like. The older I get, the more I realize that character in politicians is far more important than ideology. Decent people can disagree on the right way to solve the problems our nation faces, including this (very large) one...but lining the pockets of supporters at the expense of everyone else in the nation, particularly those least able to protect their assets, strikes me as a despicable and crassly self-serving act. The only way to a solution that most everybody can agree on is to honestly discuss the issues. With a bill named "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes" that hands $700 billion (actually more...) over to a fellow who'll be doling it out to all of his old buddies from the finance industry with no oversight, we've already established that no sane discussion can take place. It's classic doublespeak on the order of the best the Soviets and Red Chinese ever came up with, and that duplicity in and of itself is enough to disqualify this bill from consideration by honest folks. This is actually a prime example of why I genuinely like Ron Paul. I disagree with him on some major issues (immigration and abortion being the biggest), but I know where he stands, and I know he believes in what he says and acts accordingly. I think I'd like to see a lot more of that, from any side of the political spectrum. But, it seems like crooked Republicans get voted out only to be replaced by crooked Democrats. I'd be happy with a batch of honest Democrats or a batch of honest Republicans, but it seems the only way to keep them close to honest is to keep churning new people in, keep the parties roughly in balance, and keep them at each others throats so they can do the least amount of damage possible.
  - arockwell 18y ago
    The bill is quite a bit toned down from how you described it (afaik). You're talking about the initial version of it, which I thought was absolutely horrible. The version that was voted on today seemed quite a bit better (more oversight, some limits on executive pay, not all the money is paid out at once among other provisions...), but I just think that the core of the bill is simply not a good idea.
    - chaostheory 18y ago
      oversight by 2 small committees who can be bought isn't enough oversight - all transactions need to be made available to the public. Not to mention that while payments would be made in installments, there was still no cap.
      - arockwell 18y ago
        Thanks, I wasn't too aware of exactly what had changed. I didn't realize that the transactions would not be made available to the public, that seems insane.
newt0311 18y ago
From what I heard, Peloisi gave a startlingly bad speech before putting the bill up for a vote. Something along the lines of how this was all the fault of Bush and his policies and then she tried to tie this to the federal deficit. Not sure. I need to find a copy and read it to get a better idea. Even without that speech, there was a lot in this bill to dislike. Namely, giving the sec. of the treasury a check of $700 billion with absolutely not controls is a patently idiotic thing to do.
Harkins 18y ago
It's "strange sense of humor". The original creators of the app thought it was funny. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't waste ink to put astrological bullshit in the paper every day. (Length of time in office would indeed be pretty cool. I'll run it by Politics.)