Sure, Boehner -- The ONLY contribution of GOP House Members: Stimulating their Members During Stimulus Vote
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6179

It cracks me up: "If they are not willing to take any of our ideas to work with us in any way - you can't blame us, they are the majority."

Doesn't 38% of the package consist of tax cuts?? I don't think it can be said enough times- these people are are a bunch of children.
Waaaaahhhhh!!!

We should have a contest which is who can guess what month Al Franken will finally be seated. I say "May".

I'll say mid to late April. Ugh. Coleman just admitted he was stalling, no surprise.

I hope the judges start placing some deadlines and using language like "forthwith"- this is getting blatantly ridiculous.

I read this about another court case and this is what's happening here:

"Ordinary arguments build. One point adds to another and those add to another and when you think you’ve put forward enough of them, you utter a sentence that begins with “Therefore,” or something like it, and sit back with your arms folded and wait to see if your partner or the jury buys what you’re selling.

That kind of argument requires that the individual points add up to a totality that is convincing; all the parts have to support one another and that conclusion. If you argue with points that are mutually exclusive, then you’re almost certain to lose: Your partner won’t buy it and the jury won’t convict. The best-known example of the latter in recent years is perhaps the O.J. Simpson felony trial, which collapsed in large part because a glove the prosecutor said Simpson wore when he was committing two murders didn’t fit. Simpson stood in front of the jury with the glove that wouldn’t go over his hand, turning the hand with the ill-fitting glove this way and that, and looking at the jury with an expression that seemed to say, “See what foolishness this case is based on?” Later, in summation, his attorney said again and again, like a mantra, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” And so the jury did.

But in the legal world of motions, arguments aren’t cumulative. An attorney can put totally contradictory arguments out there, every one of which exists in a legal universe that excludes the others, and the judge or group of appellate judges can reject all in every regard but accept one and the lawyer may get the desired result anyway."

http://artvoice.com/issues/v7n35/stop_stalling

WaPo Analysis says that Obama's stimulus package is a HISTORICAL FEAT. It has NEVER been done before where there was this big of legislation this fast of any president ever. The closest to this is FDR's legislation where he got banking regulation passed within days of his presidency.

Speaking of the party of NO, there's an Op-Ed piece in the NYTimes Opinion titled Thirty Years Later, a Return to Stagflation written by PAUL D. RYAN a repug representative from Wisconsin.

As I read the article, I felt as if I was having to begging it to get to the point. Finally, in the third paragraph from the end he gets to the meat of the argument he is presenting.

First, he says in order to prevent stagflation, the Congress should enact fiscal policy reforms that apply the lessons learned from the 1970s. He does elaborate on what those lessons were, but I suspect it has Reagan written all over it.

Second he states Keynesian stimuli based on borrowing and spending have not worked and will not work. Again, he doesn't offer any examples to substiantiate this claim, but the hollow, dead voice of Friedman comes to mind.

Thirdly, he states that one-time rebate checks do not increase the incentive to expand business operations and create jobs. Again, he offers nothing to back this up. I have a Bus Admin degree and thought people with money, making purchases were the incentives for businesses to expand and hire.

Finally. he gets to his coupe de grace : marginal cuts in tax rates.

Typical of neanderthal repug thinking, he goes on the offensive that Congress must lower job-killing corporate income tax rate and ease business worries by making it clear that there will be no tax increases in 2010. Sure wish he would have taken the time to elaborate this one - he wasted enough of my time just getting here. Beside, we did it this way for eight years and look where we ended up.

This guy was born in 1970 so he's a tad bit shy on the experience measure when it comes to having lived during those stagflation years he seems to be so proficient about. What surprised me is he holds a degree in economics and political science. I would expect his argument to have been more professional rather than whimsical and full of hot air.

What is disturbing is the fact that the NYTimes gave him a soapbox and a corner to stand on to preach this utter nonsense. This gives him and the repugs a footing as being relevant - which they're not.

It also becomes a talking point with which repugs will point to so as to validate their no new tax stance during these times. John Dean has written about how Yoo and others have used Law Reviews as springboards for getting questionable legal views into acceptance. Such reviews are never vetted, just published. Once published, they become de facto legal opinions.