HappySqurriel on 16 February 2009
| akuma587 said: Why am I not surprised by HappySqurriel's interpretation. Being bipartisan doesn't mean you have to listen to the other side when they are being completely unreasonable. And the bill that finally came out of Congress was significantly different than the one that came out of committee. And being bipartisan also doesn't mean making a bill worse just to satisfy people. That's like sawing a child in half to please two people. It just doesn't make any sense. Tax cuts are not as effective a solution in a situation where you are facing a liquidity trap like we are now. Tax cuts were great when you were facing stagflation like Reagan did. Tax cuts aren't a one size fits all solution, unlike every Republican apparently believes. |
Being bipartisan doesn't mean that you have to give into the demands of the other side, but it does mean that you have to discuss the issues with them to understand what their demands are. If you complete a bill with little/no input from the other party and expect everyone to vote on it before they had a chance to read it how can it be bipartisan?
Regardless of whether you agree with the stimulus bill or not, there is no way you can define this as a bipartisan effort.
