"it's hard to imagine that they're not better off with a more effective bill that attracts fewer Republican votes but provides more economic stimulus."

No. Fucking. Shit.

Obama should really spend more time with out-of-work Americans, rather than trying to appeal to the fuckwads who destroyed this once-great country.

You know, you have to have a kind of grudging respect for the Republicans. When they see an evil they want to accomplish in the world, they get out and do it, and, moreover, have trained the Dems to cower in fear before their awesome non-existent might.

Nothing says strength like asking permission from your abusers.

If the stimulus plan doesn't work, Dem and GOP congresscritters will get the boot in 2010, Obama in 2012.

It's hard for the GOP to run against what it voted for.

They've done it successfully before.

Sideshow Bob for mayor!

Obama is crushing the hope he inspired in one hell of a hurry.

Pandering to rich, corporate interests is change?

Bush and the R's, get elected and have NO QUALMS about doing what they want, D's or not.

Obama and the D's get elected and immediately try to manage risk. They should ONLY be looking at two options.

1. Enact your agenda, turn this country around and CEMENT all of the moderate and new voters you picked up in the last election.

2. Be cowards and get outfoxed by the minority, piecemeal your watered down agenda and be out of the majority and the WH in 4 years.

It seems to me that Obama only need to go back and look at the results from Nov 4 to understand his mandate. He was villafied as A LIBERAL'S LIBERAL for 12 months straight and WE STILL VOTED FOR HIM.

What does he think that means?

k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com

Screw the Republicans. They made this mess. Lets do what is right and then rub their noses in it. The truth will hurt them and only help the Democrats.

From my perspective, the real problem was always that the stimulus $$ number was too low. The Obama team went for the bare minimum amount of stimulus we would possibly need, hoping that Congress would add more spending on as it went through the legislative process. But since the dollar amount they're proposing IS, in fact, a very large number (though not large enough), if anything, the stimulus may get LESS effective. They should have started at a trillion.

There is a case to be made for bringing a large group of Republicans into the fold now so that it will be easier to get them to cross party lines later in the administration. I don't actually think it will be that difficult to do, or even that it will excessivly water down the bill.

This is because the stimulus bill is such an excellent vehicle for pork projects. In many ways, "Government Spending on Infrastructure" and "Pork" are synonyms.

Republican may whine hypocritically about the deficit, or complain about "wasteful projects", or say that the taxpayers should get back more of "their money".... but, realistically, if you wave juicy enough pork under the noses of these senators, many of them will come around.

I think Obama is pandering to the public as much as to the Repubs. He's trying to earn 4 years of support, not 100 days, whcih is about the max for presidents in recent history before they get pretty much shut down in terms of agenda-setting. The first round of Obama fiscal programs will not cure anything and he'll need support for the follow up programs too.

Of course, that could just be my irrational, star-struck projection onto him, except I'm not star-struck. If that's truly how it plays out, I'll like it.

What I hope Obama does is negotiate in good faith with the republicans but make it very clear that he is in charge and wil set the agenda. The when McConnell and the rest of the creeps on the right try to squeeze him, Obama needs to use that soaring rhetoric to shut them down and put them in theri place. He needs to do it quickly though while he still has the extremely high approval ratings. I hope he doesn't cave at all -

argh.

This is ridiculous. What Obama and the dems need is *buy in from the public* not from the senators. If the public wants the stimulous bill to be huge *they* can be organized to pressure their senators. Instead of trying to get 80 senators on board with what are, essentially, bribes for good behavior Obama should go straight to the country and demand the stick for Senators who refuse to vote for something their constitutents want.

Its stupid to imagine that the republicans can't/won't run against the stimulous even after voting for it. More importantly, if you water it down until it doesn't do any good they can vote for it and still bitch about it and we will have gotten nothing.

I'm really angry that obama and the dems haven't realized one important thing from the bush administration. If you think you and your party have the right idea (even if you are wrong) you want your party to get the credit for pushing it through. The stimulus and an FDR like approach to the crisis is a damned good idea. And we want it to be remembered, in future, as something that the democrats pushed through over the objections of the republican party as a whole. If one or two individual republicans want to be remebered as workignw ith obama they will do it because it makes sense with them. But the rest of them should be forced to grovel or to accept public responsibility for being obstructionist.

That's damned good politics. In bush's case it led the country to disaster but that is because the policies themselves were bad, not because the division and partisanship and hurt feelings were bad.

aimai

It's hard to bet against Obama's instincts, but I think he is way off base here. If the stimulus package succeeds, who care if it got 51 or 81 votes? If it fails, all those Republicans who voted for it will turn on Obama like a pack of rabid wolverines. Since a successful rescue of the economy will doom the GOP to a generation in the wilderness, who thinks they really want the stimulus package to succeed?

I voted expecting Obama to respect his proclamations to work hand in hand with Republican interests, if Hillary had been elected we would have been discussing a revival of the universally hated New Deal agenda. Dear God, tax cuts are the only way forward for real change!

We needed change that goes forward, not a retreat backward to the dark years preceding Reagan. Thank goodness Obama saw Reagan's policies as the hopeful change we all desired. This plan looks like it's right out of the Gipper's playbook, tax cuts and tax breaks to those who have the capitol to make wise business decisions.

Obama is going to be the most popular Democrat president ever, thank God you guys didn't go with Clinton, what a dog she would have been.

I don't believe a word of Anon's post. Don't get the point of these fake testimonials on blogs, but whatever.

1938 Fannie Mae created by FDR as a government agency to create liquidity in the mortgage market. In 1968 it was converted to a private corporation. FDR - democrat

1977 President Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were required to make mortgage loans available to people with low incomes and bad credit in areas where they took deposits. The banking community was utterly opposed to the legislation thinking there would be a glut of foreclosures as a result of making these loans. The Banks were right. Carter - democrat

1995 President Clinton had ordered new regulations for CRA in 1993. These regulations went into effect in 1995 and increased access to mortgage credit to distressed income areas. Community groups were paid fees by banks for marketing these mortgages in their areas. Banks were still facing fall out from the savings and loan crisis and were merging like crazy. They needed to comply with the CRA in order to get approval to merge and continue to do business so they were under enormous pressure to make lots of loans. The number of CRA loans increased 39% between 1993 and 1998 while other loans only increased 17%. These are called subprime loans; loans made to borrowers who do not qualify for traditional mortgages due to risk factors such as low income, employment status, credit history or lack of down payment.

Clinton - democrat

"Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) buy loans from mortgage originators, such as banks and non-bank mortgage firms. It repackages the loans, as mortgage backed securities , and sells them on the secondary mortgage market, with a guarantee that the interest and principal will be paid, whether or not the original borrower pays. Also, Fannie Mae may hold the purchased mortgages for its own portfolio. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity."

Essentially they were guaranteeing bad loans. Why? Fannie Mae started by FDR - democrat run by Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

President Bush, seeing where this was headed, tried to create an agency to oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and completely overhaul the housing lending industry. The new agency would be part of the Treasury Department. The Democrats stopped it.

2005 Senator John McCain co-sponsors The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005. It called for regulation of Freddie and Fannie. Democrats blocked it.

2007 In February the crisis caused by the democrats hits.

Hopefully republicans will have enough sense not to sign on to this waste of money.