Skip Nav
Relationships
The Ultimate Fall Couples Bucket List
Dating
Stop Fooling Yourself, Girl! 3 Signs He's Clearly NOT Into You
Relationships
Do NOT Date Before the Divorce Is Finalized Until You Consider These Important Factors

Smart? RNC Considers Pulling Support For Pro-Stimulus GOP

Taking on the three Republican senators who voted for the stimulus bill (along with all the Democrats) might be a good idea, according to RNC chair Michael Steele. On Fox News this week, Steele sent a warning shot to Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. When asked if he would help their challengers in the Republican primaries, he said he was "always open to everything, baby, absolutely."

The RNC has since backtracked, first saying the words spoke for themselves, and now clarifying that it has no intention of getting involved in Republican vs. Republican primary battles. Do you think they should?

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
StolzeMama StolzeMama 7 years
no one will answer our question grandpa....
Grandpa Grandpa 7 years
Where was that concern for diversity of opinion when Lieberman was running for the Senate the last time?
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
I always thought we had to two party system so the two opposing groups could work together, and in the end be in the best interest of middle America, which is where the vast majority of Americans are.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 7 years
It's a stupid intention if it's an intention at all any more because then they put them selves in a position to challenge any Republican who's vote they're not happy with. Those Senators may be expected to represent the general ideology of their party but before party comes the reason they're there in the first place their constituents. They answer to constituent’s first party second. If their constituents aren't happy with their decisions then their constituents can just vote them out.
gooniette gooniette 7 years
But, that's just an opinion from a crazy Austro-libertarian. Take from it what you will. ;)
gooniette gooniette 7 years
The problem is that Congress and Bush and the Fed believed the banks without seeming to do any research or looking at when this happened in the past and evaluating those results. Then, when bailing them out, they did it way too quickly (without listening to the majority of Americans who didn't want it to happen), and treated the money as a gift instead of a loan. Now they are mad that the banks didn't do what the government wanted them to do with that money, loan it out with the same standards as the past. I don't really know who is right (maybe history will clue us in at some point, depending on whose version you read), but it seems to me that the Keynesian approach which is currently being used is not working. Spending borrowed money to help unprofitable businesses does not spell out long term success as a country. And since when is it the government's job to prop up ailing businesses that have no plan to improve their own situation and have not done anything to compete with the global economy?
gooniette gooniette 7 years
The problem is that Congress and Bush and the Fed believed the banks without seeming to do any research or looking at when this happened in the past and evaluating those results. Then, when bailing them out, they did it way too quickly (without listening to the majority of Americans who didn't want it to happen), and treated the money as a gift instead of a loan. Now they are mad that the banks didn't do what the government wanted them to do with that money, loan it out with the same standards as the past. I don't really know who is right (maybe history will clue us in at some point, depending on whose version you read), but it seems to me that the Keynesian approach which is currently being used is not working. Spending borrowed money to help unprofitable businesses does not spell out long term success as a country. And since when is it the government's job to prop up ailing businesses that have no plan to improve their own situation and have not done anything to compete with the global economy?
genesisrocks genesisrocks 7 years
And people say Obama's turning this into a partisan issue
mydiadem mydiadem 7 years
I'm conflicted gooniette, the banks came to Washington saying that if they failed the economy would collapse. Many still blame this recession partly on the fact that the government let Lehman Brothers fail. Who is right? And do we want to risk a total collapse of the world's banking system on one economic theory?
Roarman Roarman 7 years
The premise of the banks requesting the money from the federal government was so that they could start lending again. And they didn't. We aren't just talking about lending to individual citizens, but to businesses as well. Which created a dominoe effect. The banks took the money and sat on it.
gooniette gooniette 7 years
well, sure. the government wanted the banks to just pass the money on to investors, but banks aren't going to do something that causes them to potentially lose money.and if i were a bank, i'd be really upset if the government, who hasn't had a balanced budget since the 1800s, was telling me to lend my money out (even though it's tax payer money that they received as a gift). i tend to follow the austrian school of economics (are you a keynesian?) and they believe that it is government intervention and over-regulation of the market that is causing these global banking problems. if you let the banks who screwed up fail, then the smarter banks who didn't invest in all that crap will rise to the top and we as a country would have a healthier financial system. all credit bubbles (which are caused by the fed loosening up cash flow and lending out more money on a risk) are followed by a correction and period of adjustment where the losers go home and the winners gain. it also opens up opportunities for innovation.
gooniette gooniette 7 years
well, sure. the government wanted the banks to just pass the money on to investors, but banks aren't going to do something that causes them to potentially lose money. and if i were a bank, i'd be really upset if the government, who hasn't had a balanced budget since the 1800s, was telling me to lend my money out (even though it's tax payer money that they received as a gift). i tend to follow the austrian school of economics (are you a keynesian?) and they believe that it is government intervention and over-regulation of the market that is causing these global banking problems. if you let the banks who screwed up fail, then the smarter banks who didn't invest in all that crap will rise to the top and we as a country would have a healthier financial system. all credit bubbles (which are caused by the fed loosening up cash flow and lending out more money on a risk) are followed by a correction and period of adjustment where the losers go home and the winners gain. it also opens up opportunities for innovation.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
believe it or not im completely againist both bills, i think its silly to think that we are only going to be able to reap the benefits of a free market but not be able to deal with the consequences. my problem is the hyprocrisy of the republicans who supported bush's bank bailout but are now outraged by this bill.
mydiadem mydiadem 7 years
And thanks about my kitty, he is a little upset that Obama doesn't have a first kitty in the White House.
mydiadem mydiadem 7 years
Gooniette, I agree with you but banks are not lending to those with good credit risks as much as they should. That was, from my understanding, the point of the TARP. Small businesses are having trouble getting loans, and so are those with good credit because the banks want to sit on the money mattress style because of the ongoing risk that their assets with decline in value. Having more regulations on the further TARP funds, like having a look at banks balance sheets to determine solvency before granting further funds, is a good move for my tax dollars and to ensure further responsible lending. Of course Wall Street isn't too happy about that.
gooniette gooniette 7 years
mydia, would you lend money to someone if he/she was a bad credit risk and you weren't sure you could get it back? why should the banks do that? banks are lending to good credit risks, which is a change from the past 7 or 8 years. it's just not as easy to get a loan anymore.the banks should not have been bailed out in the first place, in my opinion. cute kitteh, btw. :)
gooniette gooniette 7 years
mydia, would you lend money to someone if he/she was a bad credit risk and you weren't sure you could get it back? why should the banks do that? banks are lending to good credit risks, which is a change from the past 7 or 8 years. it's just not as easy to get a loan anymore. the banks should not have been bailed out in the first place, in my opinion. cute kitteh, btw. :)
mydiadem mydiadem 7 years
I agree with Roarman, the issue here is that we can't trust private enterprise to do what is in the best interest of the overall economy or the American people. They are only going to do what is in their best interest. The first TARP allocation, and the debates about it and informatoin from Paulson, kind of said we should trust these guys and give them free pass to do whatever they wanted with the money. That didn't work out so well, so now I think Obama wants things to be much more controlled.
Roarman Roarman 7 years
i think you see more not believing it now because of the failure of that bill. that bill did exactly what it was intended to do, bail out the banks. That bill failed because the problem was much more than just throwing some money at the banks so THEY could stay in business. It didn't stipulate that they had to start lending again. So it didn't flood money into the market, it just gave the banks money to sit on. Obama's stimulus bill is not the same as the bank bailout in any way.
Roarman Roarman 7 years
i think you see more not believing it now because of the failure of that bill. that bill did exactly what it was intended to do, bail out the banks. That bill failed because the problem was much more than just throwing some money at the banks so THEY could stay in business. It didn't stipulate that they had to start lending again. So it didn't flood money into the market, it just gave the banks money to sit on. Obama's stimulus bill is not the same as the bank bailout in any way.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
i think you see more not believing it now because of the failure of that bill. that bill did exactly what it was intended to do, bail out the banks.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
i think you see more not believing it now because of the failure of that bill. that bill did exactly what it was intended to do, bail out the banks.
babaloo babaloo 7 years
The three who voted for the spending bill clearly do not have the values and principles that Repubs are supposed to have like less gov't, less spending, lower taxes. Whether you agree with those ideas or not they are SUPPOSED to be the hallmark of the GOP. The party strayed away from those principals to the point where there was no difference between the Dems and Repubs. The Repubs are returning to their base both for political reasons to thwart Dems and to return to their principals, which is good. Those other three remain conflicted and should not be given Republican support until they can decide whether they are fiscally conservative or liberal with taxpayer money.
hausfrau hausfrau 7 years
i didnt believe it then a lot of pubs didnt believe it then either. i think you see more not believing it now because of the failure of that bill.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
we are talking about spendin $800 billion plus interest. It truthfully goes against everything repubs believe. but repubs believed it when paulson was down on one knee begging to let the bill go through, and there wasnt any infrastructure in it.
Michael Shannon Fooled the Internet Into Thinking He'd Have Flipper Hands in Batman v Superman
Video Resumes
Say What? RNC Chair Michael Steele on Sotomayor
Mothers of the Movement DNC Speech | Video
Jury Duty: Do You Want to Get Picked For a Trial?
Does the Criminal Justice System Need Sweeping Reforms?

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X