4 ms·

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 th

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.

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.