 | | 09-30-2008, 02:49 PM |
|
#8 |
| System Manager
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,844
| Quote: | Hmm, then I'm surprised that 66 percent of the Republicans voted against this and that 60 percent of the Democrats voted in favor of this. That's a little backwards, in my opinion. | I think there are two main reasons Republicans voted against this:
1) Political reasons - they're too blindly partisan to agree with the Dems on anything, or they think it would be politically dangerous to do so given how their constituents feel about the bill.
2) Philosophical reasons - they think something does need to be done, but they differ in what that something is. Things I've heard suggested are more tax reductions, even less regulation, and some sort of private insurance scheme, all of which sound pretty absurd to me.
I don't think any Democrats were happy about the bill either, which is why a substantial number didn't vote for it. But I think most agree that something needed to be done and for that to happen, they were going to have to comprimise - improve the bill originally presented by Paulson (which was completely absurd, a three page note demanding Congress write a $700 billion dollar blank cheque and expressly forbid any oversight) but not change it so much that Republicans could not accept it. They didn't have a lot of time to work on it either - between the threat of an imminent economic meltdown and an election just weeks away, the clock was really ticking - and the most surprising thing IMO is that the Dems didn't just cave under pressure on the original bill, but have at least made an effort to improve it, even if it didn't meet all the criteria that that Obama listed last week (like more regulation and help for people losing their homes). __________________ "Before I go, I just want to tell you you were fantastic, absolutely fantastic. And you know what? So was I!"
|
| Reply With Quote |