Despite bipartisan efforts, NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN votes for Stimulus bill.

[armyofonerd]

Wow, couric looks like an idiot - "why what more could obama do"?  Gee couric, how about get rid of some of the pork and consider giving tax breaks to those who would actually stimulate something. Or, I'm not sure if having obama show up to yell we won and then demand their support was such a good idea. You don't hear much more of that ranting any more do you and wow, look at how much better the ecomony is today . . . . wait, it's not better - amazing.

[QuantumMechBot]

I seemed to remember the phrase "We won" as the excuse when it was stated Pelosi did not allow a single republican any input on the bill.

Gee I wonder why they got no votes. IT's a Mystery.

[cagwa]

My how time changes your feeble rant. This bill will be passed this week. Sit back, eat some popcorn, and watch.

[tubo222555]

Are you joking? The democrats are the ones that need to be bipartisan. Obama has not been bipartisan at all! Republicans have always been against the majority of things in that piece of crap.

[seekjah1]

These are old stuborn Jack Asses! No matter what they will not give a fair look at what the new president wants to achieve. They are sorry losers and for the next 4 yrs I can see it happening over and over again. If it was for war funding under Bush they voted yes! Sending billions of dollars overseas that never had accountability and never went to fund troops but to buy countries loyaties. Do not give tax breaks to companies that lay american workers off, simple isn't it? Brilliant!

[gmoney66]

If the dems had enough votes to pass the bill without one single republican vote, why push so hard for bipartisanship? If Obama thought the bill was going to be a success, why not let them vote against it? At that point he could say, "The bill was a huge success, and Republicans voted against it." He knows it's going to fail. He wants to be able to say, "Yes, my bill failed, but it wasn't the Democrats it was bipartisan!"

btw, you think if i avoid my taxes, Obama will put me on his cabinet?

[whenis2012]

stme2008...huh?

Anyway, I am proud of the Republicans! This bill will become a tax burden on our children and grandchildren. Already spoke with our financial advisor and he said if this bill passes forget good tax returns in the future. They are already getting ready for major tax increases due to this. Who pays for this stimulus....us....the ones it is suppose to stimulate. Geez, don't people take economics anymore?

[BI30]

If you HAD taken economics, you might know that investing in infrastructure yields a 150% (or more) return on your investment, vs the $750B the GOP gave away w/o oversight to Wall Street, and the $1T thrown away on the Iraq war. Likewise, "tax cuts" yield only 50cents for every dollar invested.

Geez, don't people take economics anymore?

[whenis2012]

WOW and when will this infrastructure begin??? Hmm, I think they reported like 2010 or longer?? How is that going to help us now? Anyway, did you hear me say I was for the 1st bailout dear? I don't think so. I opposed that just as much as this one. So, don't pass judgment until you know the facts. Geez, doesn't anyone use common sense anymore?

[gmoney66]

If YOU had taken economics (or history, for that matter) you'd know that every time the gov't gets involved with the economy BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

Look at Soviet Russia (and no, they were NOT communist, they were socialist), the gov't controlled all aspect of their economy, and they collapsed.

Also, Obama himself stated that this has little to no effect on our long-term economy. Meaning that this is NOT a stimulus bill.

Btw, if I evade my taxes, do you think Obama will place me in his cabinet?

[BI30]

I suggest you retake your history classess.

Three of the greatest economic success stories are from when the government invested in the economy: FDR and the WPA, Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway Project, and Clinton opening up the DoD's "ARPAnet" to the public as The Internet.

And the Soviet Union was indeed "Communism". "Socialism" is what they have in France and GB. Russia was nothing like that.

And Obama has said no such thing about "long term effects" of his bill.

[gmoney66]

Russia was, by definition, not communist. They had a leader. In communism leaders are only there to make sure no one takes power. And, if anything, the New Deal (or Raw Deal, as I call it) kept us in the depression LONGER than we should have been.

[BI30]

So foolishly wrong on one, it's no surprise you're wrong on the other.

I'll let you figure out which is which.

[gmoney66]

Can you prove it, or, like most liberals, are you just gonna make a claim and hope no one calls you on it?

[BI30]

Can I prove you're an idiot? I believe so.

Socialism only Federalizes "certain" industries, like realestate & healthcare. Private industry is still permitted.

Communism has NO private ownership of ANY business. Nada, zip, zero. EVERY business is government owned and operated. This was Soviet Russia and Red China. Both has since permitted "private industry".

Under The New Deal, GNP grew by over 8% every year except 1939, the year Hitler invaded Poland.

Tada! You're an idiot!

[gmoney66]

It may have been close to communism, but it wasn't communism. In a communist society, EVERYONE IS EQUAL! Was Stalin's power equal to that of a poor Russian farmer? No. Therefore, it was not communism, and you are an idiot. Stalin was supposed to take power to ease the country into communism, but he never gave it up. Oh, and in communism, the government owns nothing. You see, it's public ownership, owned by the people. Why is that? Because in communism, there is no strong centralized government.

[BI30]

If your argument is that "Soviet Communism wasn't PURE Communism", you're desperate.

We call America a "Democracy", though "technically" we're a Republic (not every citizen votes on every issue).

But your argument was Soviet Russia wasn't "Communist, it was Socialist", and it clearly wasn't. If you had to pick the system is most closely resembled, it was Communism.

True there was inequity, but that didn't make them "Socialist". You clearly had no clue of the difference.

[gmoney66]

Also, it does hurt your argument that USSR stands for United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, yes? Or how about another name for Soviet Russia, Russian Soviet Federative SOCIALIST Republic.

[lelouch3071]

Democrats meaning of "bi-partisanship", bend over and take it.

[BI30]

Oh please. Obama has met with Republicans more in his first week then Bush met with Democrats in eight years (twice).

[stme2008]

everyone listen there is time remember obama said dont wine do something you can write democrat senate and let them no if repubs what it this way then please put back the infrastructure that repubs wanted removed it is important many write let go