There Is a Difference… No Republicans Vote For "Son of Stimulus"

Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s historic trilion dollar Stimulus Package.
Not a single GOP Rep voted for the democrat’s record budget.
And, once again, not one single Republican House members voted for “Son of Stimulus” the latest Democratic spending bill.
Despite what some people say, there is a difference between the two parties.

The democrats passed their latest spending bill 218 to 214.
The Hill reported, via Sweetness and Light:

The House narrowly passed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) $174 billion jobs bill Wednesday, only after Pelosi and other party leaders yelled, pleaded and cajoled reluctant Democrats worried over deficit spending.

The vote was 217-212. No Republicans voted for the bill, and 38 Democrats voted against it.

It was the second suspenseful vote of what House members hope was their last workday in 2009. Democratic leaders also had to lobby members from conservative districts to pass a $300 billion increase in the debt limit.

The close votes reflect the growing unease among centrist Democrats that the deficit spending that Congress has undertaken to right the economy is becoming a potent campaign issue.

“We’ve got to indicate we’re serious about the deficit,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who voted “no” and represents a Republican-leaning district with low unemployment. “We didn’t cause the deficit, but we have to address it.”

Rep. Connolly is right.
Democrats didn’t create the deficit. They just tripled it in less than one year.
obama deficit
The democrats increased the national debt to $12 Trillion.
And democrats nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years with their failed Stimulus Plan.
So now their going to give “Son of Stimulus” a try.

#1 December 17, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Cargosquid commented:

Anyone else notice that if ONE Republican votes for a Democrat bill, its BI-PARTISAN!

If THIRTY-EIGHT Democrats vote with Republicans AGAINST a Democrat bill, nothing is said….

Bi-partisan OPPOSITION! Woohoo!
#2 December 17, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Dave commented:

Well, there is a difference between the two parties, but it could be that the difference is mostly about whose friends end up with the money. That the Republicans have voted against the latest massive stimulus bill doesn’t mean they wouldn’t support a massive stimulus bill that brought goodies to their own suporters. In fact, many of them did with the first one, which was then signed into law by a Republican.

I’d like to believe that the Republicans have had some kind of conversion to fiscal responsibility but I haven’t seen it. Like a lot of people I know, I was completely disgusted with how the Republicans behaved when they had power. The idea that they should get our support now because the other party is worse is a non-starter with me personally. They need to do a lot better than that.
#4 December 17, 2009 at 2:25 pm
crosspatch commented:

Milton Bradley is going to make out like a bandit providing Congress with truckloads of Monopoly money. Where does Congress think it is going to get the money to pay for this?
#5 December 17, 2009 at 2:37 pm
bill-tb commented:

Takes a while, but progress is being made.
#6 December 17, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Tom63010 commented:

Is this sudden fiscal responsibility or is it political survival….either reason it is most welcomed.

Democrats say they are the ones with a big tent party. Conservative Democrats are finding that may not be true.

Let’s make sure that they know they are welcome in the Republican Party. The Democrats can let the Liberals keep control of their party. The Republican Party can embrace the Conservatives and we can see who can persuade the moderates to their side.

My bet is that the moderates would soon live under “conservative rule” than under the current liberal rule”.
#7 December 17, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Ozwitch commented:

They know they’re gonna lose, and lose big next year. So why not stuff up the economy so badly that the incoming House can’t do anything good with it?

That’s politics.
#8 December 17, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Jeff commented:

Dave …

so what do they have to do to satisfy you ? they ALL voted no to the second and now the third stimulus bills …

please give a single example of “friends of the GOP” getting pork from the first stimulus to support your “they are all crooks” argument …
#10 December 17, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Joanne commented:

Spending with borrowed monies does not stimulate anything but the pocket books of the lenders.

You spend to stimulate the economy and it doesn’t work, then you spend more in hope of stimulating the economy – gee sounds like the definition of insanity to me. I wonder if even one of those democrats would take from their own purse strings and lend the U.S. government a dime – I somehow doubt they would have such faith…..but with the taxpayers’ monies…..who cares!
#11 December 17, 2009 at 3:42 pm
MANstreammedia commented:

I repeatedly hear democrats claiming that some ridiculous legislation is okay because “the republicans did it.” Guess what, whatever being discussed was idiotic when the republicans did it too (and generally the democrats do whatever deed 3x worse). I’m glad the republicans have come around on voting for such ridiculousness and I hope that a grassroots movement keeps a republican majority in line during its return to power (I don’t think there was such a movement in play the last time).
#12 December 17, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Carbon Monoxide commented:

The Republicans may have voted against the stimulus but they DID stuff it with earmarks for their districts so that when they “lost”, their districts would make out. For instance the Rep here in Knoxville put $2M in earmarks for his pet projects in the stimulus, then voted against it. Next election, he can claim he voted against the economy killing stimulus bill, then brag about how much money he brought to his district.
#13 December 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Ladue Pundit commented:

Overall, the Democrats have proven that they are collectively a party of pro-homosexual radicals, anti-family, anti-baby taxists. Just read their platform.

I do admire the way their leadership controls its members and keeps them in line like the Gestapo. I wish the Republicans had the guts to treat RINOs that way.
#14 December 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Robert commented:

We need to get rid of them all.

Democrats first.
#15 December 17, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Dave commented:

Jeff,

I’d actually be pretty easy to satisfy at this point. The Republicans don’t have any real power right now, so all I can go by is their words. If Republican leadership sincerely admits that they were overspending like druken sailors when they had the chance, and and commits to doing better next time, then I am predisposed to accept that. If, instead, they say “see, we told you that the Democrats would be even worse,” they will have to make do without my vote.

I got called by a Republican Party fund raiser shortly after the last election. He said he wanted to ask me some questions about how the Republican Party could do better in the future. Even though I knew it was just a pretense to ask me for money, I was actually excited to give my views, since I think the Republican Party is broken and the country needs a healthy Republican Party. Their first question was, “what would you say has been Obama’s biggest mistake so far?” I cut him off in disgust. They clearly don’t get it.
#16 December 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Jo commented:

$12 Trillion. And this is the Bozocrats first full year of total capital hill control. As the Head Bozo states oft: U ain’t seen nottin’ yet!
#17 December 17, 2009 at 5:16 pm
averagemelon commented:

I am utterly amazed the way the Liberals truly believe that spending more and more money will make things better…just give it a chance! They do not seem to grasp the idea that this money actually is a LOAN and needs to be paid back to those who gave it to us. Americans are so strapped for money, they cannot afford a new LOAN when they don’t have the money for the old ones.
Everyone in power is drunk with it and has lost ALL sense of what the VAST majority of us are doing out here every day. They really cannot believe they spent ALL the money plus WAY MORE. We are going to have to hit the “do over” button and forgive ALL debt and start over or be slaves to debt for several generations.
#18 December 17, 2009 at 6:21 pm
chuck in st paul commented:

Somebody buy those 38 Dems a steak dinner and all the adult beverages they can consume (maybe there should be a time limit on that… <g> )

Even though it is ‘merely’ survival instinct that made them do it, that reflex is what the Constitution is all about – REPRESENTATION.

Obamacare – not what we the people want.
Another stimulus package – not what we the people want.

Three cheers for all the pols that ‘get it’.
#19 December 17, 2009 at 8:24 pm
AuntieMadder commented:

I get what Dave said about GOP spending in both his posted comments above and, for the most part, agree. I don’t know about their friends being recipients of the money they blow and I hope that’s not the case, but I wouldn’t put it past most of them.

Even if their buddies are recipients, that’s not as bad as the Chicago-style, pay for play and payback s**t that’s going on now. Yet, like Dave, I’d also like to see something better than just not as bad. I’d like the choice of something good instead of having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Carbon Monoxide
December 17th, 2009 | 3:58 pm | #12

The Republicans may have voted against the stimulus but they DID stuff it with earmarks for their districts so that when they “lost”, their districts would make out. For instance the Rep here in Knoxville put $2M in earmarks for his pet projects in the stimulus, then voted against it. Next election, he can claim he voted against the economy killing stimulus bill, then brag about how much money he brought to his district.

I’m not sure that this is a bad thing. I mean, was the total of the stimulus to be the same whether or not he earmarked some of it? If so, it would have been worse for his taxpaying constituents (and their kids and grandkids, too!) to be robbed of their money yet not receive any benefit from it at all. If, on the other hand, the total stimulus amount was increased by the amount he asked for, even though a couple million is just a drop in the total stimulus bucket, his vote against was just a ploy and he’s just another slimy politician.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to indicate we’re serious about the deficit,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who voted “no” and represents a Republican-leaning district with low unemployment. “We didn’t cause the deficit, but we have to address it.”
It’s unfortunate for Connolly that he chose to explain his vote against by blaming Bush. Otherwise, I and other simps like me would have thought he was a man who’s finally come to his senses, maybe even a man who’d found his backbone. Instead, his feeble attempt to do what his constituents want while also paying lip service to his party backfired and makes him look like just another slimy politician. And a shmuck.
#20 December 17, 2009 at 8:25 pm
AuntieMadder commented:

chuck in st paul
December 17th, 2009 | 6:21 pm | #18

Even though it is ‘merely’ survival instinct that made them do it, that reflex is what the Constitution is all about – REPRESENTATION.

True.
#21 December 18, 2009 at 12:00 am
befuddled commented:

holy crap, cut that republicans were for it before they were against it nonsense. rightfully, the banking industry was in a downward spiral and needed to be propped up. whatever avenue you want to walk down, we all know who is to blame for that fiasco– and you know it wasn’t fiscal conservatism to blame. well, bush spent 1/2 of the allotted tarp funds and stopped. and yes, he wasn’t for bailing out a bunch of union thugs in the auto industry who happened to shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity. but once democrats fully owned the government, it was like kids at the candy factory. that’s how we got into tripling the deficit. so stop equivocating, republicans aren’t democrats. do you actually think a republican would advocate tripling the deficit to prevent another enron? well that’s what obama and his cohorts did.

so you telling me that not only do i have to keep paying for my health insurance at ever increasing rates, but i have to now support a bunch of strangers or else go to jail? does this make sense to anyone?