Can the GOP renew itself by being against everything?

First, when the economy improves, Obama WILL get the credit whether or not the Republicans vote for it. An improving economy always helps the President no matter who vote for the stimulus.

Second, the House version of the bill was horrible. Your question should really be, "How long can the Democrats stay in power if they follow a tack to the hard left."

Third, the Republicans aren't against a stimulus bill, they are in FAVOR of a stimulus bill. What they are against is a "pork-laden spending bill".

Justin, are you against a "pork-laden spending bill"? or would that be too "negative".

rrsafety,
-
There is simply no evidence (at least no objective study that I have been shown) which indicates that government spending is not stimulative. Further, any program that is designed to reduce long-term costs and assist in correction of the structural imbalances in government spending via medicare, medicaid, social security, defense spending is good.
-
I am all for one-time grants to the NEA, parks, or paying folks to put sod on the national mall. Sure, it costs lots of money, but if you want lots of stimulus you need lots of spending.
-
But I think it is also important to begin addressing failed infrastructure, failed transportation networks, and leaky social nets in addition to medical policies which prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce costs long-term to the government. It is not plausible to continue to put off hard decisions for more debate and consideration.
-
It may be in the Republican interest to debate and delay, but it is not in the American public's interest. Further inaction and continued job losses and a weak economic recovery risk turning America into an economically failed state. And as we learned from watching Reagan bankrupt the USSR, that is the real danger to American hegemony. He who controls the gold makes the rules. We shouldn't forget that.

You are talking about two completely different things. If you want to spend billions on STD prevention, put it in an HHS funding bill, but don't lie to the American people and say it is part of the effort to "avert DISASTER AND CATASTROPHE".
In fact, if it was really a disaster and catastrophe, why would the Dems be playing politics with all this non stimulative foolishness? And if I recall, didn't we just sign a $300 BILLION highway bill a few years ago, where the heck is all the stimulation? Or is the answer simply more, more, more regardless if it works or not?

No, my point is simply that any money that government spends on buying American goods or having Americans work on projects or programs in America is stimulative. Further, this is not a stimulus bill. The name "stimulus" is what the media calls it. It is more than just stimulus. It is revitalization, recovery and stabilization. Stimulus is an extremely narrow focus, and I hope our legislature is not nearly so myopic.
-
Yes, we did have a $284.6 billion highway bill. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8894520/ And the fact is that if you look at the jobless recovery of the last recession, you can see that the bill money was all spent trying to prop up what has really been an economy based upon less than reality. There are myriad studies showing that our legislature is unwilling to spend money for preventative care, streamlined regulations and many other policies and programs designed to fix structural government deficiencies. These structural components have a cost both now and later. We cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul. Nor can we afford to hold robbing Peter to just tax Paul tomorrow. Simply put, I think it is time to make those hard decisions now to prevent serious damage 10 years from now. And that includes on education costs, health care, defense spending, etc. These programs need to begin to take advantage of all potential realized savings or position to do so.
-
Further, I can tell you where that $285 billion went. I see it every day on my way home. You can thank Tom Delay for the cost and sheer size of our highway projects because he staunchly opposed mass transit for years. http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/schematics/i10/i10.shtml Over $1 billion alone (in 1999 dollars)!!! And that was just that section of I-10 going west...doesn't include I-45 north or south, 59 north or south, either of the 3 loops nor I-10 east. And that is just the city of Houston...not Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, etc. And then let's look at Florida, California...expensive to build roads in swampland and along mountainous areas in Cali. So, yeah, that $300 billion is already spent...did it work? Yes, but we needed to spend $1 trillion on road work then and now the cost is probably higher. It reminds me of a negative amortization mortgage where you don't even cover the interest.

So, its not a stimulus bill?
Why has my President been lying to me?

It is a stimulus bill but with the added advantage that we'll have something to show for it when we're through.

The bill will act as stimulus. It is just not only a stimulus bill. And the President hasn't been lying!
-
First off, words matter. Stimulus-"Something causing or regarded as causing a response." Amer. Heritage 4th Ed.
-
Several parts of the plan which Obama seeks are not trying to elicit a response. Some parts are specifically to retard some occurrences. We know, for instance, that foreclosures are harmful to an economy. Bank failures act likewise. Actions taken to maintain the status quo are arguably not stimulus. Further, some parts of the plan provide future cost savings...kind of like putting electronic fuel injection systems into cars. Certainly, the advanced engines cost more but the vehicles became more reliable and fuel efficient ultimately saving money. It was smart policy.
-
In my final analysis, stimulus in its broadest definition cannot encompass the breadth of a bill that Obama is seeking to enact. Because all fiscal policy by definition could be interpreted to be stimulus, it is not helpful to have a discussion over whether a bill which spends money is stimulus. Spending money has always "caused a response." The question is whether the policies being proposed will create jobs now and later (because this will be another jobless recovery), save money for the American taxpayer and influence policy in a direction that reduces our dependence on the Middle East and South American dictators for oil and China for goods and credit.
-
And, oh yeah, the name of the bill is "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" better referenced as HR 1.