They both would have voted for the previous version of the bill. They even said so during the debate. It still failed in the house.
I've been making small donations to many of those who voted against it and are in competitive races, including Al Green (Who's great for a Democrat. If this sexual harassment thing goes away, he should be Deckard's VP.), and encouraging many others to do the same. It's our attempt to try to offset the threats of removing committee assignments and chairmanships by their leadership.
I actually wrote to Gene Green tonight asking him to re-vote nay on this thing. Also I found out I could buy a flag through my rep to fly over the Capitol and keep it, which I think is pretty cool.
But we weren't discussing the Ted Kennedy crimes... were we? BTW- KingCheetah... Delay is gone. Policed.
it appears our Ike relief was one of the sweetners added: "The Senate-backed package extends several tax breaks popular with businesses. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans. And it would provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana."
Yeah, the truly sad thing about the sweeteners is that it shows that even when the country is supposedly facing "dire consequences", our illustrious politicians can't even pass legislation without stuffing it full of crap that benefits themselves.
Those politicians are there for their constituents. It's not benefitting them, it's benefitting the people that elected and will reelect them. I'm sure Obama voting for more taxes is really going to help him in his tax bracket. Or whether the middle class is avoiding paying the alternative minimum tax. If one side feels that a deal is not fair because the other side is getting all of the say, they will have to push back to make sure it is even. That's how it works and that is why it takes so damned long. It has nothing to do with "politicians' greed for benefitting themselves."
The original bill was actually pretty good in terms of limiting some of the extra crap. The Senate combined it with a bunch of crap (that had already passed 93-2) in order to entice the House to vote for it. We'll see if that works or not. I can't imagine it will come to a vote again in the House until the leadership on both sides are absolutely certain they have the votes.
It has everything to do with greed and self interest(and partisanship). It's all done for the vote.....not for the actual benefit of anyone(other than politician and party). If they weren't greedy they would pass a cleaner bill....one that benefits the nation as a WHOLE, not put in useless tripe that benefits the makers of wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum or race tracks....and their own party.
Well, isn't that idealogical. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone thought the same way? The arrows, rum, and race tracks are all part of the economy. Houston, Galveston, and Louisiana are part of the economy. If you are a representative from Texas, and you see $700 billion about to be spent, wouldn't you want to make sure that the people in GTX without a home get some relief assistance first before it is all gone? Not to mention over of a quarter of all economic activity in the U.S goes through Houston in one way or another.
there are a million ways to spin this thing...but it looks like the sweetners are intended to help some struggling industries w/ big oil picking up the bill to counteract a large portion of the hit the fed would take otherwise. whether you love or hate big oil, this could potentially have the largest impact on Houston's economy since O&G is in a boom while the rest of the economy is down...
It's not a matter of everyone thinking the same, its a matter of elected officials putting the country before themselves and their party. That's a novel idea, eh... Just say it what it really is......earmarks for special interests...
The way the finance lobby was clamoring over this bill and given the influence this lobby has in both presidential campaigns, Congress, and the White House, the core of this plan reads like an earmark for special interests. This is a really bitter pill...
Some insider report on CNBC claims that the conservative democrat votes (the guys who they suspected might balk over the tax breaks) are holding, and that the number of Republican votes is expected to increase substantially. So if that report is true we should be looking at a strong vote in favor tomorrow. I'm considering going long equities today and prepare to turn around and go short tomorrow afternoon.
