Today’s crucial spending bill
apparently went down in another revolt by GOP moderates. For now Think Progress has the only info, but you can be sure more will come out soon.
CNN has more on the bill.
The Guardian’s headline sums it up thusly:
House Democrats Defeat Spending Bill
When I first posted here one could reasonably argue whether Democrats matter. Now, however, it seems safe to put that question to bed. The age of Gephardt and Daschle is over.
Slightly watered-down version passed late last night. Rep. Don Young can sleep comfortably knowing that those Cadillac-driving food-stamp queens will finally get their comeuppance.
Pass the popcorn, please.
I’ve always liked Spector. There are few Republicans in Washington I would trust to do the right thing over the partisan thing. He’s one of them. I think there might be 3-4 others, all from the New England states.
From the Washington Post online:
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said one factor in the bill’s defeat was the drop in the president’s popularity and his inability to maintain unity among the GOP ranks. He also noted that the Republican Party misses the vote-gathering powers of Texas Rep. Tom DeLay _ nicknamed “The Hammer” _ who has stepped aside as majority leader because of legal problems, replaced by Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. “Not every blunt instrument is a hammer,” Frank said.
Republicans are big spenders, but this proves the Dems are worse. When faced with the opportunity to make budget cuts, Dems give us the familiar “But what of the children”
wow Darrell, are you channelling DougJ today?
The main problem with the DemocRATS is that when they fund pork projects they actually try to find some way to PAY for them. The Republicans have the foresight to realize that they can fund all the pork they want and where the money comes from doesn’t matter.
More bread! More circuses!
Democrats voted for every major spending program under Bush (medicare prescription, Education bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, agricultural bill). Reversing the tax cuts would not have paid for all this spending. So now the Dems are blocking attempts to cut spending. Republicans are bad, but this demonstrates that Dems are worse without a doubt
You’re pathetic, Darrell, you know that? Anything to cover up for your precious party, including lying. That must be why you don’t mind being lied to by them all the time.
You’d prefer that they keep throwing a billion a week into a black hole. Oh, by the way, most Democrats would repeal the “No Child Left Behind” bill faster than anything else.
So grow up and get some balls and start demanding more from all of government you partisan twit.
It’s obvious that the Democrats can’t control their spending habits. They had the chance to decrease funding for Medicaid recipients, student aid and food stamps. It’s obvious what this nation needs to help our enormous deficit. More tax cuts!
If the Republicans were in control, things would be much, much different.
Why should the government subsidize secondary education anyway? So we can have the most educated wait staff in the world?
Hey, John? Aren’t you a moderate? What’s with your boys on capital hill? Snark.
The Republicans have the foresight to realize that they can fund all the pork they want and where the money comes from doesn’t matter.
The foresight is the certainty that the Second Coming will eliminate the need to repay the debt. It’s free money. It would be against the will of God not to run up huge deficits.
Super. Now everybody thinks they’re DougJ.
Hey, I was Doug J before there was Doug J. Or am I really Doug J? Hmmmm. He tried being a righty for a while, don’t you know.
I have family in Austin, so I know how smart the wait staff can be there.
And Darrell now explains why it is Bush’s Social Security plan died in a big heap of flaming dog turds.
A united block against Republican bills is an effective opposition weapon.
From the Guardian article:
Have they found a cure for Republicanism yet?
I get it. After the Rapture, only the heathen will be left to pay the bills. I don’t suppose there are collection agencies in heaven.
“Why should the government subsidize secondary education anyway?”
Because it’s better to have an educated populace than an ignorant one, without getting into secondary effects at all?
Education is at least as worthy of a subsidy as marriage.
I don’t know, Stormy.
If I didn’t know you were dougjing, I’d comment that I certainly hoped that the government didn’t subsidize yours too much, though.
So we have an educated population that won’t vote for assholes like Bush.
I do. The framers of the constitution declared that democracy depends on a well-informed and educated population in order to function. The government is responsible for public education as one of the fundamental pillars of our governmental system.
If I didn’t know as well that Stormy was making fun I might make an issue of it, but since I do I won’t.