Jan 27, 2009 1:43pm
Scenes From a Stimulus Battle, Part 3
EmailPresident Obama added 5 minutes to the Q&A part of his meeting with House Republicans.
"My Senate friends can wait," he said, referring to his next meeting.
The most robust applause of the meeting followed, an attendee tells ABC News.
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., says he thinks income tax cuts will move capital into the economy more quickly.
President Obama says his plan for $275 billion in tax credits — including payroll tax refunds of $500 per person, $1,000 per family — would work better.
"If there are new ideas that we haven’t seen that we like, we’ll talk," the president said. "Refundability is a philosophical difference."
– jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
These meetings should be live on C-Span so the American public can see for themselves just how accomodating the President is being… and consequently, how intransigent the Republicans are being if they continue down the path they’ve been following for the past week or so. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Posted by: Lisa | January 27, 2009, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
robust applause?
oh, that makes me feel all so much better. can we feed the children and the poor on robust applause? no… we can’t
Posted by: mark | January 27, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
Again why even bother dealing with the House Republicans. They already told the media that they were going to vote NO on the stimulus bill even BEFORE they met with Obama.
They were not even going in their with good faith.
The GOP is a JOKE!
Posted by: Amoreena | January 27, 2009, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
mark,
Lighten up will you?
Can you tell me what President Obama has done since he took office a week ago that portrays incompetence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | January 27, 2009, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
Can you tell me what President Obama has done since he took office a week ago that portrays incompetence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | Jan 27, 2009 2:09:21 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is spelled….e v e r y t h i n g!!!
Posted by: Mildred | January 27, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
The Gop And the Their tax cuts, I dont understand for the life of me when THE GOP PARTY IS GONNA WAKE UP And realize Just giving Tax cuts HAS NOT WORKED We have done that for 8 years. What has it done? Obama Just do what you were Elected to do FIX THE REPUBLICAN MESS! SCREW THE GOP!
Posted by: Angie | January 27, 2009, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
stevenj…
a treasury sec. who forgot to pay his taxes. a sec. of state with conflicts of intrests. a stimulus plan that spends money we don’t have, and that will not work. shall i go on, steve?
WAKE UP, please.
Posted by: mark | January 27, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
Again why even bother dealing with the House Republicans. They already told the media that they were going to vote NO on the stimulus bill even BEFORE they met with Obama.
They were not even going in their with good faith.
The GOP is a JOKE!
Posted by: Amoreena | Jan 27, 2009 2:09:04 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sic-um Republicans!!!
Why…4BILLION to ACORN?
Amoreena, just buy another box of kleenex; your check will be coming soon.
Posted by: Mildred | January 27, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
Again why even bother dealing with the House Republicans.
====
Because Obama wants to be able to share the blame if it doesn’t work.
Posted by: MayBee | January 27, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
Doesn’t Obama already have the political capital and the votes to pass the stimulus package anyway? I’d be disappointed if he were to bow down any further GOP pressure to change it. They remind me of a gang of petulant kids vying for attention who already know there’s no stopping the consequence, or package.
Posted by: kathy | January 27, 2009, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
mark …
KEEP DREAMING …
Posted by: bloggette | January 27, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Again why even bother dealing with the House Republicans. They already told the media that they were going to vote NO on the stimulus bill even BEFORE they met with Obama.
They were not even going in their with good faith.
The GOP is a JOKE!
Posted by: Amoreena | Jan 27, 2009 2:09:04 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t fret, the check will be coming soon.
Posted by: Mildred | January 27, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
Mark,
All those pale in comparison with the blunders of the Bush admin if you consider those blunders. Apparently you and hardcore Repugs are the only one with that opinion?
Where were you with Cheney and Halliburton, Uncle Rommy, Rove, Gonzalez, Ken Lay, etc., etc.
Can you say HYPOCRITE and REPUBLICAN in the same sentence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | January 27, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
kathy…
children who know the you can’t spend what you don’t have.
lessons to be learned…the hard way.
Posted by: mark | January 27, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm
i love your responses…
not one refutes my points…and in fact…your silence to my points infers agreement. yet, you call me names and recite a history of other corrupt pols as if i embrace them. i claim neither party as mine. i’m just right.
Posted by: mark | January 27, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
“President Obama says his plan for $275 billion in tax credits — including payroll tax refunds of $500 per person, $1,000 per family — would work better.”
The payroll tax is Social Security and Medicare.
If you ‘refund’ those taxes arent you creating a huge hole in the annuity programs?
The only reason Obama likes this cut better is that is goes to the working poor who dont pay Federal taxes. The problem is that it is effectively raiding the Social Security Fund (aka ‘lockbox’) to hand out money now.
In any event I think a smart family wont spend this money stimulating anything. They will save it.
Posted by: BertieW | January 27, 2009, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
BertieW, Social Security actually runs a surplus, which Congress raids to make the deficit smaller each year. So if the trust fund is smaller, it will actually force more honest accounting, or at least more transparency when it comes to the deficit.
And Mark, deficit spending is the only way to get out of a recession/depression. In this economy, private citizens, even those who get the magical supply-side tax breaks, are not going to reinvest in the economy in a meaningful way. The government, however, can.
Posted by: eric | January 27, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Can you say HYPOCRITE and REPUBLICAN in the same sentence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | Jan 27, 2009 2:24:55 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No I am not living in a dream world. I have been having nightmares since Nov.4.
You will be having your share soon.
Mildred is a world of knowledge, guess you don’t get the emails.
Wrong – E V E R Y T H I N G!!!!!!
Posted by: Mildred | January 27, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Mark,
No one has to refute any of your points because you lack credibility.
Your cynicism and pessimism speak volumes.
Posted by: JV | January 27, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
Can you say HYPOCRITE and REPUBLICAN in the same sentence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | Jan 27, 2009 2:24:55 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes you can say that; and you can substitute DEMOCRAT for REPUBLICAN!!
Posted by: Mildred | January 27, 2009, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
Barack Obama won the Presidency last November 53% to 47%. Today, a couple of months later, those who think he is doing a good job are a good job are a good 10% HIGHER than that!
In fact, only a mere 10-15% of America thinks like you do — that Obama is doing a bad job.
How does it feel to be a part of the tiniest minority in America?
————————————
Can you tell me what President Obama has done since he took office a week ago that portrays incompetence?
Posted by: Steve_NJ | Jan 27, 2009 2:09:21 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is spelled….e v e r y t h i n g!!!
Posted by: Mildred | Jan 27, 2009 2:13:55 PM
Posted by: Jan | January 27, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
Lisa, yes, live meetings on C-SPAN would be interesting. Then we could test your assumptions– you have no more access to the meetings than I do yet you assume that in these meetings the Republicans are being intransigent and the President is being accommodating. My assumptions, based on what I have seen and read coming out of Washington of late, are different. I see many Republicans expressing concern about the wasteful spending embedded in the bill and about the lack of follow-through after initial statements in support of a level of tax cutting to be included. That is not intransigent– they are stating their concerns. Do you really think birth control (now removed, wisely, per Obama’s direction) and after-school snacks and student loans, for example, are stimulative? They may be worthy measures, but they need to stand on their own merit and be voted on in the normal course of events, following the philosophy Obama espoused while running for office of evaluating new spending for effectiveness and need and balancing new funding with elimination of ineffective, unnecessary existing spending. I realize the stimulus bill is not designed to follow that line of reasoning, and need not, but to throw in the kitchen sink of items that are not stimulative and allowing them to be put into effective without that justification is not “change.” The President goes through the motions of engaging the Republicans, which is a step in the right direction, and did move to eliminate the most egregious example of Pelosi’s overstepping. But in general, he nods his head and then pronounces that he’s still waiting to hear something new that he can support adding to/changing about the bill. He is not moving to act on reasonable Republican suggestions or to insist that Pelosi and company give the Republicans a seat at the table in putting together the details of the bill. The path the Republicans are on is not a particularly bad one, seems to me.
Posted by: moderate | January 27, 2009, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
“He is not moving to act on reasonable Republican suggestions or to insist that Pelosi and company give the Republicans a seat at the table in putting together the details of the bill. ”
I’m not aware that the Democrats were allowed to be proactive in putting the Bush rebate stimulus together, which obviously panned out to be a nonproductive measure for stimulating the economy in any detectable way. I can’t help but notice a certain double standard in the statement, and for that matter, throughout the posting.
I have to admit I find the use of the name, Moderate, disconcerting because of its lack of accuracy. Or shall I be more blunt and say its lack of truth?
Posted by: kathy | January 28, 2009, 11:09 am 11:09 am