The aftermath: Stupak to retire

Seems to me he abandoned his principles when he voted for Obamacare. His "group" gave Obama the victory.
Then he went home and caught hell.
Is this an indication that the Democrats are really out of touch and didn't understand how much people hate this bill?

Or did they just "know better".

Oh but the other side was just making stuff up. Everyone who voted in favor of this bill has nothing to worry about.

We need a sarcasm smiley.

I think he bailed to become an abortion doctor and get some of that HCR money.

More likely is that he realized that his party's leadership is dominated by the far left. With his more moderate views he probably knew he was reaching a dead end.
That's not common for someone who has been in office for nearly 20 years.
Gee, thanks, Nancy.

Gregg said:

More likely is that he realized that his party's leadership is dominated by the far left. With his more moderate views he probably knew he was reaching a dead end.
That's not common for someone who has been in office for nearly 20 years.
Gee, thanks, Nancy.

Click to expand...

He was one of the minority who voted against the Iraq war, although he represents a fairly conservative district. He also supported health care reform from way back.

His concern was not about the substance of the HC bill, but about the abortion issue, about which he holds strong religious and moral views.

Maybe he got tired of a thankless job. Maybe the last straw was the right wing death threats against him and his family.

ColoradoGuy said:

Dominated by the far Left? You need to get out more and meet some full-bore Lefties. The Democratic Party is slightly left-of-center, as demonstrated by Obama.

Click to expand...

That's kinda hard. I live in the 42nd most conservative county in the country.

I think Obama is farther left than you do. Let's see who he picks for the Supreme Court - I predict a far, far, far, left winger.

Actually, given that I met the man personally, I think he'd still have a good chance of getting reelected. Plus he's from my home town, and I know some of his family members.

He's a yooper, like me, and over the years he's done a lot to help us out in a part of michigan that tends to get fucked over at the state level. Anyone who thinks he'd get spanked in an election obviously isn't from the area.

It's kind of a shame he's leaving. His level of seniority was of great benefit to a very small and under represented region of this country, and now we're going to end up back at square one again .

Who cares? I mean really. If the man says he decided he's done, I believe him. If you've lived long enough you know there are times in this life where you look at a situation and say, "Time to move on." I wish the man no ill will (despite the fact that I disagreed with his vote) and hope that he enjoys his family.

ColoradoGuy said:

Well, he barely got passed a health insurance bill that was mainstream Republican stuff in the mid-90s, and he just signed a treaty that was endorsed by Ronald Reagan -- for which he is now being vilified by many in the GOP. The Overton Window has clearly lurched to the right.

Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it? Reagan, as deified as he is in the Republican Party, would fail the ideology purity tests being insisted upon by many current Republicans. And fail them miserably.

Dommo said:

He's a yooper, like me...

Click to expand...

Me too!

I'm actually really disappointed about how all of this played out. I have really respected Stupak for his service to the state and the district. He's lived a life of public service, and he's done so with an amazing amount of integrity. This health care debacle just screwed with the boundaries. I'm not happy with how he voted, but I think he said back in October that he intended to vote for health care even if the abortion matter couldn't be resolved.

And shame on those who've threatened him and his family. There's a right way to affect change in this country; threatening your elected officials is not it.

Same with JFK - his views on foreign affairs would place him at the right of his party today.

But what we are seeing in the Tea Party is a movement away from the social issues which some right wing Republicans have championed.
The Tea Parties stress fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. Reminds me of good old conservatism-
I may be wrong, but I don't remember Reagan making a big deal of social issues - his other issues were far more important.

Yes, but JFK's tax cut proposal was a stimulus plan to get the country out of the recession that hit at the end of Eisenhower Administration. It was a pragmatic response to specific economic conditions. It was not borne out of the same ideological commitment to lower taxes, which Reagan broke from on several occasions both as governor and president.

Tax cuts are one of the choices for a stimulus. Increasing government spending and cutting interest rates are the other two. And I've never said otherwise.

robeiae said:

Tax cuts are the fix for a recession?

Click to expand...

Maybe.
If people have more money after they pay taxes they are more likely to spend more money. That should translate into more jobs and an improved economy.
Then there is the psychological effect.
When the market crashed in 2008-209, I know of quite a few rich people (who still had gobs of money after the crash) who became cautious - and cut back their spending.
People "feel" richer when the stock market is rising, even if their own situation does not improve as much.
Spending by individuals is more productive than spending by government, IMO.

Yes, but you got to get them to spend. You hit on the problem - if people are worried, they are going to be reluctant to spend. Remember, Bush pushed through a large stimulus bill in Spring 2008 that was entirely tax cut, and it didn't work.

The stimulus package of 2008 included a rebate instead of a permanent tax cut. That may have boosted spending, but the positive effects, if any, were short term. I used mine to buy a new TV. But I suspect that many used their rebate to pay down their credit card bills.

Better for the economy was the increase in the Section 179 write-offs (business could write-off up to $250,000 spent on new equipment. We've used that in our business - we spent the money on equipment rather than for taxes)

clintl said:

Yes, but JFK's tax cut proposal was a stimulus plan to get the country out of the recession that hit at the end of Eisenhower Administration. It was a pragmatic response to specific economic conditions. It was not borne out of the same ideological commitment to lower taxes, which Reagan broke from on several occasions both as governor and president.

Click to expand...

And oddly enough; it worked. I wonder why we haven't tried that this time around. Instead, we're spending through the roof and trying to find new ways to tax everyone (VAT, soda tax, tanning tax thanks to the health care bill, requiring people who can barely keep their houses to drop everything and buy health insurance). It seems like a LOT could be learned from JFK's tax cuts.

clintl said:

Yes, but you got to get them to spend. You hit on the problem - if people are worried, they are going to be reluctant to spend. Remember, Bush pushed through a large stimulus bill in Spring 2008 that was entirely tax cut, and it didn't work.

Click to expand...

That wasn't a tax cut. It was a one-time tax rebate. You're right. It didn't work and many big name economists told him at the time that it wouldn't work. This is back when he was trying to convince the public that this wasn't a recession. The act of trying to stimulate the economy actually had the opposite effect because it frightened people.

Tax cuts build confidence that the government believes the economy is improving. The irony is that when the economy is better, even with tax cuts, the government will make more money than it is right now or will by increasing taxes and adding new taxes. People will just start spending less when new taxes are added because we don't like taxes (maybe it goes back to the days of tarring and feathering tax collectors or throwing tea in the harbor). It doesn't matter why but if the government wants to spur spending the way to go without a doubt is to lower taxes.

Wow, what a shift from the retirement announcement.

Actually, we don't know whether JFK's tax cut would have worked, because it wasn't passed until after he was assassinated, and by then the economy had recovered and was growing at a healthy pace again.

Interest rate cuts are usually the first and most effective way to deal with a recession. The problem with using them in this recession was that they were already very low - there wasn't much room to cut them further.