Political Cartoons

I hope Obama's learned his lesson about "bipartisanship."

From:

From:

Clearly you have not seen or paid attention to what Obama's done to the plan to accommodate the Republicans. Never mind they rejected it anyway.

From:

Gotcha. So killing the contraceptive funding and adding additional tax cuts for small businesses (as the Republicans specifically requested) was "ignoring" them, right? And Boehner urging his GOP colleagues to vote against the package before even meeting with Obama was negotiating in good faith, right?

*chuckle*

Like I said, I hope President Obama learned a lesson, i.e. the goal shouldn't be getting GOP votes. The goal is putting together a package that will save the economy, which was destroyed by GOP policies in the first place.

From:

I don't understand why the Republicans think we need them to be onboard. We can put the legislature through WITHOUT them. They don't even have to show up!! They can just do what they've been doing for the past 10 years or so!

From:

Becuase nothing will pass in the Senate without Republicans on board. Plus in 2010 the dems will lose plenty of seats. Of course, this won't stop the libtards from doing what they have been doing for the past 60 years, tax and spend.

From:

Hannity talking points AGAIN??? Is that all you've GOT?

"Tax and spend Liberals" is a MYTH. For what "tax and spend" goes on on the liberal side, there is 100 times as much "borrow and spend, and spend and spend" going on on the conservative side. Or does that not occur to you, that since Reagan, every time we have a Republican in office, the budget deficit climbs into outer space? And under Clinton, it almost vanished?

Your other points are valid; fortunately there are Republicans in the Senate who aren't on crack. And I think if we play our cards right, it's the Republicans who'll lose more seats in '10 for being obstructionist pricks when it was time to do something rather than NOTHING.

From:

aerorhcp.livejournal.com

The plan is still full or pork. The problem the GOP has is that its full of Dem pork not GOP Pork, thats why.

Im siding with the 11 democrats who voted against this. They are the ones who are actually using their brains and not pointing fingers at the other guys.

From:

Can you please educate me as to the pork that is in this bill? Specific examples?

From:

aerorhcp.livejournal.com

tons and tons of pork my friend. Here is what 5mins of research found

$600 Million To Buy New Cars For Government Workers (Page 89). These cars would be "green" friendly cars - however very few gas pumps have the right gas to run these cars. The Federal government already spends $3.5 billion a year.

$600 million for grants for diesel emission reduction (Page 119)

$3 Billion for Prevention & Wellness Programs, Including $335 million for STD Education and Prevention - Recent government expenditures in this area include a transgender beauty pageant in San Francisco that advertised available HIV testing and an event called "Got Love? - Flirt/Date/Score" that taught participants how "to flirt with greater finesse."

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (Page 122)

$75 million for smoking cessation (Page 148). This contradicts the latest version of SCHIP that is funded largely by new taxes on cigarettes.

$4.19 billion open to ACORN. The Pelosi-Reid bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

$650 million for additional digital TV conversion coupons.

$400 million for global-warming research.

While some of those programs would be good for the country, they shouldnt be part of a stimulus package

From:

I nearly disagree with you completely - I actually feel you're right about the smoking cessation programs and the prevention and wellness programs, even if there is a benefit to the nation over the long term to reducing smoking and the incidence of STDs. (FYI - I realize your example about the tranny beauty pagent is designed to invoke disgust and horror, but I think of it as a good way to reach people who might not otherwise be reached to spread a good message. There's no need to be afraid of trannies, they're incredibly strong and awesome people.)

There's a lot of good here in the spending you classify as pork. First off, I like how the bill is moving America forward. You mention the green friendly cars as your first example and then state that there's little infrastructure for alternative fuels. So the government is actually creating demand for this infrastructure by purchasing green cars, which makes it easier and more convenient for the public as a whole to begin the conversion as well. Not only have you greened the government fleet, but you've invested in greening America too by inducing demand to green the infrastructure. Great move! The money for diesel emission reduction and climate change research fall into this category.

I fully support funding the arts and there's a history of doing just that (http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/money_17.html) during other times of economic crisis although the money going to NEA is pittance compared to what was spent during WPA on the Arts.

Finally, your ACORN bias is showing. I don't dislike ACORN at all and, living in an urban area, I'm glad that the cities are getting some real love. They're the economic engines that drive our country and a hotbed of innovation. Not only that, you stated yourself that this is only OPEN to ACORN. For all we know, some small dynamic non-profit that has some untested by brilliant ideas will do some amazing things and revolutionize the way that communities support themselves. Again, this is a good investment.

And this, I think, gets us to the crux of the differences between Republicans and Democrats. What you would consider pork, I consider good public policy.

From:

I'm generally on the side of Democrats who are the ones going "yo, wait just a goddamn minute here" when the rest of the legislature's all hair-on-fire WE GOTTA DO THIS NOW NOW NOW OMG WTF!!!!!11!!1!!ELEVEN

Those are the kind of Democrats I can still stand. Reid and Pelosi I kinda wish they'd... uh... go missing off a ferryboat in Hong Kong or something... hehe...

From:

So Obama saying "I won" was part of negotiating?

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

So saying "I won" basically told the Republicans that the debate ended on Nov. 4 and that he didn't care about any input.

From:

1) He did win.

2) He tried to negotiate in good faith, and made some meaningful concessions per the Republicans' specific requests.

3) The 'Pugs had no intention of negotiating, as made evident by by Boehner's pre-meeting memo.

Doesn't really matter in the end. The package will go through with or without the GOP. I just hope Obama took it as a lesson not to to engage them any more. We don't need your input, blessing or permission.

From:

He didn't negotiate in good faith and never planned to take into consideration anything the republicans wanted. That's what the "I won" statement was about.

The package, right now, has stalled in the Senate where I hopw it's ripped apart for all the wasteful spending that's in it. It's not a stimulus package, it's a payback package to all those duped by the messiah in chief.

From:

"He didn't negotiate in good faith and never planned to take into consideration anything the republicans wanted."

He slashed the contraception funding and added tax cuts for small businesses, both of which were high on the GOP bitch list. Did you expect him to roll over and present a GOP bill instead of his own?

Take your time answering the question this time. You've got eight years. :)

From:

Can you please name some specific examples of what you consider "wasteful spending" in the package?

From:

ltmurdoch.livejournal.com

Couple of quotes for you. First, Obama listened and took the GOP ideas very seriously:

"At the meeting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, passed out copies of the Republicans’ five-point stimulus plan. At first blush, Obama said, “Nothing on here looks outlandish or crazy to me,” Obama said, according to a source familiar with the conversation. He seemed particularly receptive to some Republican ideas about increasing benefits to small businesses."

The "I won" line was in regard to one specific item in the negotiations. In a light-hearted but direct way, he indicated that there was one part where he was not willing to budge. Even Cantor, the target of the comment, said it was not disrespectful:

Yet in a polite but pointed exchange with the No. 2 House Republican, Eric Cantor of Virginia, Mr. Obama took note of the parties’ fundamental differences on tax policy toward low-wage workers, and insisted that his view would prevail.

At issue is Mr. Obama’s proposal that his tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, including his centerpiece “Making Work Pay” tax credit, be refundable — that is, that the benefits also go to workers who earn too little to pay income taxes but who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Republicans generally oppose giving such refunds to people who pay no income taxes.

“We just have a difference here, and I’m president,” Mr. Obama said to Mr. Cantor, according to Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who was at the meeting.

Mr. Emanuel said that Mr. Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers of both parties had laughed.

Mr. Cantor, in an interview later, had a similar recollection. He said the president had told him, “You’re correct, there’s a philosophical difference, but I won, so we’re going to prevail on that.”

“He was very straightforward,” Mr. Cantor added. “There was no disrespect, but it was very matter-of-fact.”

You are wrong again. (I should be tired of saying that by now...)

From:

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: “I won,” according to aides briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

Jonathan Martin and Carol Lee confirm the comment for Politico.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Doesn't it pain you to be wrong all the time?

From:

How is

ltmurdoch actually wrong? Obama *did* win. Big time. So f*cking what?

From:

blueduck37.livejournal.com

Okay, in reality Obama watered down the bill (taking out LOTS of spending that Democrats wanted... transit spending, some infrastructure repair, etc) at the request of GOP leaders, adding in tax cuts and other things like that to make the bill more to their liking. And then he literally wined and dined them. And then Boehner gave down the word, and they all voted no anyway... and then (!) many GOP congressman complained they hated the bill because there wasn't enough infrastructure spending (example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydaE1s9E5uU)).

In 2007, Mitch McConnell admitted (http://politics4geekz.blogspot.com/2007/03/ladies-and-gentlemen-your-republican_10.html) he blocked the minimum wage increase simply as "a good early lesson for [Dems] as to how things will work," and then chuckled. And that's all this was too. They're putting Obama in his place.

In addition, part of their calculus is: 1) They get Obama to water down the bil in exchange for votes, 2) they vote against it anyway (because if it succeeds, it helps Dems), 3) hope the watered-down stimulus fails and the economy stays bad, and 4) run in 2010 midterms by saying "see, we told you Obama stank, and we tried to stop him!"

It's not only shameless, it's incredibly transparent.

From:

Which is why I hope that in the conference committee, they put in all the stuff that they stripped out on behalf of the republicans.

Let's show them that if they vote against their own interests, they won't get any wins.

From:

blueduck37.livejournal.com

PS- Bipartisanship (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/).

From:

From:

If this is the case then what happened to the provision for family planning? And why are there so many different tax cuts? And and and?

From:

Better to get stabbed in the back early on. At least Obama knows the rules of the game now.

Hopefully, he'll remember them for the next eight years. No more deals.

From:

I friggen hope so. Screw me once, shame on... Screw... we don't get screwed again... yeah.

From:

yes-justice.livejournal.com

we don't get screwed again... yeah

"....I tip my hat to the new prostitution..."

From:

rawbery79.livejournal.com

Oh, but you know, that's just Obama CHANGING stuff!

...idiots.

Here, have a drink.
(http://tinypic.com)

From:

Don't you understand? If it's not all tax cuts all the time, it's tax and spend liberalism!

And if you don't support tax cuts all the time, you're obviously a democrat.

And since America is now decidedly blue in their government (bluer than the red of the distrust and fear of the "political capital" Bush era) and they want a change from the failed policies of the past, they're in the Democratic majority.

Ergo per this cartoon, the plan is helping America, as intended. ;)

From: