AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

by Todd Beeton, Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 01:00:57 PM EST

MSNBC is reporting that a tentative deal on the stimulus bill has been reached. The amount of the bill is around $780.

Update [2009-2-6 18:3:13 by Todd Beeton]:David Schuster: "A bipartisan group of negotiators in the Senate have tentatively reached a deal and Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is now trying to discuss this deal with the Democratic caucus and possibly bring this to a vote tonight."

Update [2009-2-6 18:47:58 by Todd Beeton]:Here is CNN's story on the deal. This is my favorite part:

Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich concluded that his "philosophical" differences with the approach of Republican negotiators was too great, a Voinovich aide said. The senator said he could no longer support efforts at compromise or the final bill, the aide said.
Voinovich's departure left four Republican senators involved in the negotiations, and Democratic leaders will need at least two or three GOP votes to pass the bill.

Someone take away his "centrist" credentials.

Senators will speak about the deal reached within 15 minutes.

Update [2009-2-6 19:5:52 by Todd Beeton]:Some welcome wisdom from Nancy Pelosi:

"Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill," the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.
"We must have a bill [quickly]," she said, in a clear message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has spent the past two days wrangling with moderates who want to cut proposed education funding for the states by as much as $50 billion.
"These cuts are very damaging [the House bill] was put together very carefully. ... The funding goes directly to school districts, they are stimulative because they maintain jobs instead of cutting jobs."

And let me just say as an aside that I actually think Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is working in good faith with the Democrats and will likely end up being one of our greatest allies in the Senate. The perverse thing is that it she is likely to get an enormous amount of pressure from her colleagues not to compromise with the Dems because, as Dick Morris said on Fox News today, if Democrats can win over a reliable 3 or 4 Senators for most votes then that renders the rest of the Republican Senate caucus, and hence the entire party, virtually irrelevant in Washington. Amen.

Update [2009-2-6 19:26:0 by Todd Beeton]:John Kerry: 42% tax cuts, 58% spending. Christ.

Update [2009-2-6 20:1:9 by Todd Beeton]:Chris Matthews just called Joe Lieberman "the 4th of the big 4." The others: Susan Collins, Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter. Mike Viquera: "I wouldn't go that far. Let's stick to the big 2." Ha.

Update [2009-2-6 20:21:27 by Todd Beeton]:C-SPAN says the $780b compromise has been negotiated by Sens. Collins (R-ME), Nelson (D-NE), Snowe (R-ME), Specter (R-PA) and Lieberman (I-CT.) Noticing anything? Witness the rising power of the Northeast and the growing irrelevance of the south.

John McCain is on the teevee railing against his favorite bogeyman "wasteful spending." Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Second verse, same as the first.

[UPDATE}John McCain: drama queen: "if this legislation is passed it would be a very bad day for America."

Update [2009-2-6 20:32:29 by Todd Beeton]:Jon Kyl: "My staff has just reconfirmed the numbers that as compared to the House passed bill...this bill would spend, or create a deficit, of $827b, the House bill $820b, so $7b more in deficit spending than the House bill." Are Republicans SERIOUSLY concerned with deficit spending? Really?

Update [2009-2-6 20:32:29 by Todd Beeton]:Tom Coburn: "This bill represents generational theft." La la la you have no credibility la la la.

Update [2009-2-6 20:36:27 by Todd Beeton]:Claire McCaskill on Twitter: "We will have more votes tonight. But doesn't look like we will do final vote till Sunday."

Update [2009-2-6 21:18:21 by Todd Beeton]:On the MSNBC scroll: "Sen Reid: Vote expected on Monday."

Watching Rachel Maddow now, she's having a great conversation with Joan Walsh from Salon. Rush transcript:

Walsh: "Obama was elected. Democrats were elected to change. There was a mandate for change...There was a mandate to really examine the fundamental premises of our economy that have brought us to this state...I also think this idea that they're compromising on the size of it. I don't know any economists out there who are saying this needs to be smaller, I know economists saying this needs to be bigger. They have one chance to do it right so they're cutting? The only reason to cut is political, you can argue what it should do, that's one issue, but to cut is craziness and it's strictly political. It's not about economics and it's not about what's good for our country.
Maddow: "It's making the policy worse because the politics demand it. Which probably means that the politics should change."

Tags: Senate, stimulus (all tags)

Comments

103 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

so what did we give up for this "deal"?

by goodleh 2009-02-06 01:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

Yes, what was put in, and what was taken out?

What did our new Majority Leader, Ben Nelson (DINO) get in his new role as king-maker?

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 01:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

looks small

So more than $100 billion was cut. Insufficient.

by esconded 2009-02-06 01:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: looks small

I meant the overall package. Looks like some tax cuts were removed.

by esconded 2009-02-06 01:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

Does it strike anyone else as odd that it has taken nearly a month and lots of nasty words to get this passed, but when we were literally cramming money into the desks of incompetent wall street managers, everyone just went along with it like it was the most natural thing in the world?

by the mollusk 2009-02-06 01:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

I'm obscurely referring to TARP funds in the above post.

by the mollusk 2009-02-06 01:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus

Yep. Although, in fairness, the fact that that one came first and then failed may have had something to do with some of the reluctance on this one. Still not much of an excuse, though.

by TheUnknown285 2009-02-06 02:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

And no one ever stops to ask how we are going to pay for a war. Yes, it's a strange country.

by Steve M 2009-02-06 02:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

This bill will do nothing to sitmulate the economy. It's now just show. Remember that this is over two years. Not one. It's not nearly enough of a percentage of GDP to produce the demand necessary to stimulate the economy. Again, I am going to provide you with some historical context:

GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product

Unemp.: Unemployment rate
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
---------------------------------------- ---------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.h tm#BackFirst100Days

More than that- look to what other countries are doing presently to stimulate their countries demand:

Austrialia is planning stimulus at 9 percent of GDP

China's stimulus is even higher than that.

Of course, the unspoken story is that this will impact our ability to move to the next boom. We are starting to lag in the green tech revolution.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 01:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

not only that

some of what they removed (like food stamp money) is the best kind of economic stimulus, because it puts money into the hands of people who will spend it immediately:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=11354

by desmoinesdem 2009-02-06 01:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not only that

true. Part of this so called stimulus package will not produce immediate spending or demand. This is all a mirage.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 01:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

This is the best we could do now

We had to fight tooth and nail to get the few Republicans we could get to support this. Susan Collins actually said she wanted a $600B bill, but Obama convinced her a little higher. We can place more stimulus items in the budget(which cant be filibustered).

by Kent 2009-02-06 01:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This is the best we could do now

This is not the best we could do for now. This is a result of a failed leadership.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 02:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

How would you have led?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 02:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

They can change it at conference

Apparently a conference bill CANNOT be filibustered. Bowers says that but I am not concrete on this.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jse ssionid=5A62394ADC64385AD4DEF799B1D7C540 ?diaryId=11422

by Bury 2009-02-06 01:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Filibustered?

Wasn't this the Republican party who were screaming "Up or Down Vote" as if it was a combination of the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge of Alligiance just a few years ago?

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

What I want to know is why didn't the Democrats offer this much resistance to the initial bailout bill which was geared towards undeserving banks?
Also why didn't the DEmocrats show this much resistance during the Iraq war buildup?

Now you got Obama coming up with a plan that will give money to the people, and you got both parties, primarily the Republican, all fo a sudden more worried about the specifics of this bill.

by Pravin 2009-02-06 02:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

Republicans SUCK at execution, but are great at messaging.

Democrates are good at solving problems, we SUCK at selling the solutions

One party is honest, one will lie through their frigging teeth and have NO qualms about it.

Sort of an unbalanced playing field.

Besides, Democrats are too damn polite.

I would last about an hour before I would be strangling John Kyl or David Vitter...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

You want to know why? B/c the Democrats actually think they are playing ball in the game of politics and in shaping public opinion & the Republicans just laugh & do whatever they goddamned well please. That's why. Time for our party to grow some balls- NOT negotiate away our citizens future & tell the Republicans to stop being obstructionists. The Republicans got to run our country into the ground for 8 years now - let them go public and say why their wrong ideas are now right. OR they can say publicly that they will do by the will of the people and let it pass. Let them filibuster. There are ways to stop that as well. Remember when Kennedy attempted to filibuster? Of course we as the Democrats never did anything to continue that b/c we were so afraid of appearing partisan. Unbelievable.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-07 07:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus

All I can say is something better get changed on the conference report and/or some things better get added to the yearly budget which should be coming up soon.

by TheUnknown285 2009-02-06 02:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

I'm composing a letter to the rw's in Congress

Lieberman will be included.

Here's what I have to say:

Dear XXXXXX --

You had six years in the majority under GW Bush during which time you earned yourself the nickname "The Do Nothing Congress". In 2006, the American voters rewarded you by putting you in the minority and you paid us back by threatening filibuster on every single piece of legislation (excluding those put on super secret hold).

Our response was to reduce your numbers even more in 2008. Now you are up to your old tricks again. Some of you are up for reelection in 2010. Keep in mind that the President has about 3 million volunteers on tap of which I am one. We will be happy to donate to your opponent, even travel to your state and help get out the vote for your opponent if you keep up this childish behavior between now and your next campaign.

It's up to you whether you see a future for yourself in politics.

Still rough around the edges but you get the idea

by GFORD 2009-02-06 02:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

They will think they are on the right track

And just use it as a fund raiser with their far right base.

You're a commie, pure and simple.

Why do you hate America so much? (wink!)

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

John Kerry: 42% tax cuts, 58% spending. Christ

Christ would have nothing to do with this bill.

Pilate would, on the other hand, approve of the changes, but still be calling for more tax cuts.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

So the real stimulus is actually 232 bil for this year.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 02:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

We will have to see the details to figure that out.

If Kerry says those numbers are the breakdown, of 780 billion, that means 405 is spending.

Or, are you saying, according your numbers, if 232 of the bil is spending, then 548 billion is what is left for tax cuts?

Not sure what your 232 billion means?

Again, we need to see what is left in the bill.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

I am saying according the bill being over two years , not one. GDP which is the number against which we should peg the values is over the course of a year- no two years. THus, to understand the numerical value and its impact we have to divide it by two to get an accurate read on what percentage of GDP this is, and thus, what percentage of GDP we are actually 'stimulating." We compare this to other countires- such as Australia- at 9 percent of GNP or China at 20 percent.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 02:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well, either over one or two years

This ain't gonna make Paul Krugman's weekend hot list....

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Well, either over one or two years

This is also bad for the future. Basically it's giving power to the threat of fillubuster over everything Congress does. So long as that threat is there everytime, and we are afraid to address it head on- it will make real policy making difficult. That's why this strategy of Obama's was doomed from the start. Knowing the players, knowing ht emoves, etc there was really only so many things that could happen. This is what happened to Clinton. He eventually had to let the GOP go through with their threat. The same must happen here. We have got to stop letting the GOP use this threat or else we will never get anything done.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 02:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

How do you suppose to stop the GOP

from threatening to filibuster...essentially filibustering is what Tom Coburn has been doing all week proposing amendment after amendment.

Filibustering gives them time to parter with the media to brainwash the country.

How do you supposed to stop the GOP threats? Kill them?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How do you suppose to stop the GOP

a) By letting them carry out the threat, and then using public pressure to change the dynamics. this is what Clinton sucessfully did in the 90s. That would require the willingess to use political capital.

b) By threatening to take away the fillibuster. This is what FDR did when he threatened to pack the Court.

Those are just two suggestions of top my head. Both would be real hard ball, and both would make sure that this threat is no long an effective one.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

You obviously missed what I said

Letting them filibuster is going to help how? How are we going to get public pressure for them to stop when the media keeps flooding the airwaves with right wing talking points. It's as obvious as ever that during a GOP filibuster, the media will knight them martyrs for the cause, defeating evil Democratic pork to help the common man. We have already learned we're outnumbered when shaping public opinion.

And yes maybe we should get rid of the filibuster, but we'd have to accept that we wouldn't be able to use it either.

Neither are clear solutions if you understand how our government works.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You obviously missed what I said

i can't help you see what you aren'table to see thorugh your fear. good luck.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You obviously missed what I said

The only way the Dems will be successful is if they go around the media and the common wisdom spin. We are in serious trouble here; it is not time to be faint-hearted (or frightened of what the media will say). Remember Roosevelt's words about fear. If the Dems don't stand up now, will they ever? That's my fear.

by orestes 2009-02-07 09:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How do you suppose to stop the GOP

Incidentally- your hyperbole is why things will never change. There are some pretty clear solutions to the problem that but-for the theatrics could be uses, but will not be becauase your kind "kill them" b.s. is now what passes for thought.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

what?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yeah, and I doubled up on your badness!

I guess we both cost the 2010 election by posting stupid stuff on some blog...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yeah, and I doubled up on your badness!

no the fear is represenatative of democratic mentality, and has been for decades. you start off with what you are afraid of. thus you define everyintg in the debate according to this. its hard to have a conversation since so many democrats think this way. facts are irrelevant to the perception generated by the fear.

there are several things that could have been done to address the threat of fillabuster that never will be done because teh democrats are too afraid to lead. they aren't willing to expend capital.

i see that here, but it's just representative of the great fear that defines how bills are proposed.

i compare how Bush started the TARP discussion versus this bill. Remember that bill too failed to pass as first, and then a few weeks later it passed.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

I explained

why making them filibuster would likely not work...because they're doing it already and it isn't working and I agreed that we could get rid of the filibuster, but if the GOP didn't can it when they could have, we probably won't because they want it if they're ever in the minority...so I don't understand why you're babbling about fear?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I explained

because you have decided before hand what will or will not occur based on what you beleive will or will not occur and you don't even seem to know you are doing it?

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!

I thouhg tyou were not going to say anything to me? This week was theatrics because the Dems did not want to expend any political capital on pushing the issue in another directon. Namely , the issue of the fillabuster in general.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Do you honestly think

if instead of spending the week proposing amendments and thus preventing a vote on cloture, they stood up and read the phone book, somehow the message would've been different in the media? That somehow the media would have taken our side and presented the Republicans as obstructionists instead of a power balance?

Do you really think that?

I'm starting to believe you're the type of person who if the Democrats got hit in the face with a pie, you'd blame the Democrats for being in the pie's way.

Do what nraf said, put on CSPAN, watch for yourself. He's right, this IS a filibuster. It's been for the whole week.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Do you honestly think

Its worked in the 90s. So I don't have to think. I know. All you have is fear to justify your position. And yes, I know they may fillabuster. So let them.

What you don't get because of your fear is that this will define all debates going forward. By caviong now, it defines the Congress for the next 2 years. The only way you change that dynamic is to take the power out of theri hands by a) ending the fillabuster or b) public backlash (as Clinton did through brinksmanship in the 90s).

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

What worked in the 90's

Republicans controlled Congress in the 90's

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What worked in the 90's

not entirely. the 1993 budget was a result of the GOP obstruction. THen the public turned briefly on the GOP as a result.

We have the advantage this time of not being in the middle of the acedency of the Reagan revolution. So there is little threat from a Contract on America.

As I said- this is about the theatrics. The dems do not want to take the 'risk" of owning this plan. if they acted as I decribe, they would have to own it and thus risk political capital, but they aren't willing to do that out of fear.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

You haven't described anything

come up with a detailed plan on what they should do and maybe we can contact the Senate and give them a plan.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You haven't described anything

the flat earth argument. "You haven't proven to me that the earth isn't flat, and therefore, you are wrong."

Like I say- predictable as the sun rising.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

WTF are you talking about?

you're babbling now.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: WTF are you talking about?

brinsmanship is the strategy, and yet you claim I have not give you the strategy.

utlimately your strategy (the strategy of fear and capitulation) leaves us here again and again at whim of some small Senate gang. My way forces the issue once and for all off the table.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

brinkmanship

is a word, granted one that makes you sound smart. A word is not a strategy and I asked you to explain it and you ended the conversation

Why again should ANYBODY here take you seriously?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 05:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

The public did not turn on the GOP

for the obstruction of 1993. Clinton actually withdrew his stimulus package because of it.

by Kent 2009-02-06 04:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The public did not turn on the GOP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Bud get_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993

I was referencing the deficit reduction plus also the nuclear option.

This along with the fact that the public supports the Democratic agenda means we could win, but it would require taking some political risk.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

The difference

Was that Republicans were more than happy to see that budget pass because it would include tax increases that slowed the recovery and they could blame Democrats for "the largest tax increase in history" even though it was a complete lie because of inflation. Its like saying that we have the largest GDP ever this year.

by Kent 2009-02-06 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The difference

I dont see how your argument works against my point about brinskmanship as the proper strategy since a real recovery bill would speed up rather than slow down recovery. There is zero incentive to want the GOP involved in this bill since their goal is a bill that fails at the job of sitmulating the economy. Our goal is a bill that stimulate the economy. Thus, they should be cut of the process by using brinksmanship.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The difference

One other positive- 2009 is not 1993. We would not have to fear a contract with America as being effective. Whatever the public thinks of us, they now think even less of the GOP. THat's something, if we had an ounce of courage, that we would use.

That's why this is about the theatrics. The fear of not being seen as the owners fo the bill. That's what this entire week as been about. Even after al lthe claims of - we are going to now fight. The strategies tell the real truth. Dems were never intended upon fighting.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Do you honestly think

by the way- that's why i say this is about the theatrics. if this were important enough for the Senate Dems beyond the theatrics, they would be willing to take these steps because of it.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!

by the way- the term for what I am describing , as somene just reminded me, is called brinksmanship.

It's another basic negotiation strategy.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: DT/Wash

yes- it's only me saying this right now. I hope that makes you feel better to personalize it, but its not reality which I suspect many of you know.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I explained

They are not filibustering now. They are obstructing. And they will continue to obstruct. The only way arounbd this is to to do what's right, stand by it, bring all of the Dems along (strong arm and threaten them if you have to) and let the repubs filibuster if they choose. Then you go back to the public and tell them why this needs to be passed. I am pleased to see that Obama intends to bring his case to the public early next week. I think he should have been out front on this from the start. The Dem leaders should have gotten together to hammer out a bill and then seek repub input. Instead, it appears that no one's at the helm on the Dem side. Everyone's trying to cater to the repubs.

by orestes 2009-02-07 10:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How do you suppose to stop the GOP

How do you supposed to stop the GOP threats? Kill them?

That would be a start (only kidding, let's just beat the hell out of a few of em...)

It would make me feel better somehow!

Seriously, this is the worst I have felt since election night.

I watched democrat after democrat cross the aisle to vote with Bush.

I f*cking HATE Republicans...

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: How do you suppose to stop the GOP

the gop is not to be blamed for our cowardice as a party.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

If you feel more angry at our side...

Go for it.

There are plenty of sins to go around.

Clearly, we blew this badly.

But, I'm not letting criminals like Vitter off the hook.

That jack-ass was up there wailing about the family planning part of the bill?

Sorry, I am pissed at our side.

I still hate the Republicans.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If you feel more angry at our side...

well- I am reminded of this line "when it happens the first time, shame on you. When it happens the second, shame on me." How many times has this happened with the Democrats? This is why although I look at the GOP and say- they are ass holes, I still can say that I don't blame them. They are doing what they know they can get away with because we are weak as a party.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If you feel more angry at our side...

But the problem is at the end of the day I pay the price - I who said this was a mistake, I who voted the right way, I who knew what they were doing is wrong. And they; they go home and go to sleep at night & try to destress from their complicated job or take time off to not think about it while I who knew what was happening & screamed & yelled about it get to live with the results & they don't!

by jrsygrl 2009-02-07 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

Rush Limbaugh suggested that the bill should be 54% spending and 46% tax cuts, based upon the popular vote split in the presidential election.

So after all that, the best we could wind up with in the Senate was a few percentage points better than what Rush Limbaugh himself suggested? Wow.

This is an absurd form of bipartisanship. When the Republicans are in power, they get the whole pie, and when the Democrats are in power, we get half of the pie and they get half. And when you make bad policy, it's the country that suffers the consequences.

by Steve M 2009-02-06 02:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree

So far, on the surface, we look like pussies.

These Moderate Centerists are running the fricking show. If ONLY THEY WERE Centrists, heck they make Barry Goldwater look Liberal most of em.

Ben F*cking Nelson? I maxed out donating to Obama to have Ben F*cking Nelson set economic policy?

This really sucks.

I feel like Rachel Maddow. Someone talk me down....

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 02:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree

I will wait for the final signed bill before I jump to any conclusions. Who knows, maybe things will get better from here.

But I'd note that I haven't heard anyone extolling the genius of the supposed "price is right strategy" for quite a while.

by Steve M 2009-02-06 03:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Ok

Obama doesn't control what the Senate does...we didn't have to have Susan Collins and Ben Nelson control this bill, why did the people of Maine reelect Collins? Why did so many people in Maine vote for Obama AND Collins?

The people asked for this. So many people voted Republican for Congress as a check on Obama...what they got was obstruction. The people asked for this.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

That's very true...

Everyone in my band is screaming lefty, except the trumpet player (he's in real estate) who said, well, a split government is best.

I think folks are conditioned to think that, because mostly if things are going well, you might want not too much tinkering.

But, when you need action, obstructionistism is the Enemy.

It's not like they run the Army on a Democracy Plan? Let's 50% attack and 50% retreat?

Really, I am LESS bent out of shape at Susan Collins then at Nelson.

Doesn't it say D behind his name?

Democrat, my fat white behind!

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well we all knew Nelson was a lost cause

by again, he's from a state that just elected Mike fucking Johanns to the other Senate seat...Mike Johanns? Over Scott Kleeb? Who made a really good case for progressive ideals?

His state strongly rejected progressive ideals, so I don't blame him, but we shouldn't expect him to be a Democrat because he's a Democrat, we should expect him not to be because he's from Nebraska.

This is why we need a ground up approach. We need to go into places like Nebraska, make the case for progressive ideals, build progressive communities, get progressives elected to the state legislature, then mayors and eventually Congress, etc.

Right now Nelson has no political reason to vote with us. The people of Nebraska made that clear.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

I see your point

it will probably be easier to get a more left democrat elected in the place of Susan Collins then replace Nelson.

I'm just furious.

Cutting f*cking money for schools?

Jesus wept....

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see your point

it will probably be easier to get a more left democrat elected in the place of Susan Collins

Tell that to Tom Allen.

Really, I covered some of the Senate campaigns last year. I spent a few days on the Allen campaign in the summer. They were warning people that this would happen, that Allen would vote for them and Collins would vote with her party. The people of Maine just weren't buying it. There was a lot of frustration on the Allen campaign because they just couldn't connect to voters they should have connected with. It was like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe had some sort of hypnotizing effect on that state. Now we're paying for that. I hope they're happy.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

People are generally afriad of change

That is why the incumbent has such an advantage.

Was it Collins that broke her term limits pledge?

I like Oly Snowe better, not that she is more liberal, but Collins seems a bit smarmy to me.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

If people are so afraid of change

then maybe it's important to accept that even though we elected a Democratic President and a Democratic majority, the American people didn't ask for the change they need, but just enough change to make them feel comfortable.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well, we better wish them good luck with that...

My parents lived through the Great Depression.

It didn't sound all that comfortable.

by WashStateBlue 2009-02-06 03:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If people are so afraid of change

You make a damn good point. If people really wanted change, they would have defeated Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, and several more Republican House members. The argument in 2010 should be that if you were expecting to get change, you should have elected more Democrats to Congress.

by Kent 2009-02-06 03:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If people are so afraid of change

This is not an issue of the Republicans. it's one about teh democrats. The only way this could happen was through the democratic leadership.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If people are so afraid of change

The issue certainly is Republicans. They can filibuster all they want and they will.

by Kent 2009-02-06 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If people are so afraid of change

they can fillibuster because we allow them to fillibuster.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

They're allowed to filibuster

because they're Senators. The only way we can stop them from filibustering is with 60 votes and to get 60 votes, we had to strike this deal.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: They're allowed to filibuster

the fillibuster is not required by the constitution, and does not need to be the rule. the deal was about s ct nominees. they broke their own rule. again bad faith negotiators. And it does not require 60. the so called nuclear option.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

What rule?

If you're talking about the Gang of 14 rule, that expired when the GOP lost their Senate majority.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What rule?

the point is that it does not require what you say it requires. this is why this is theatrics.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What rule?

here's a link to the reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_opt ion

again- brinksmanship is the strategy.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

God you're frustrating

what the fuck do you MEAN by brinkmanship. Do you MEAN permanently eliminating the filibuster, cause that's what the nuclear option would do, there would be no more filibuster, ever. Not just that one time, but ever.

Is this what you mean? I don't know what you mean.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: God you're frustrating

I am going to end the conversation with you. Good luck.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

I only asked for clarification

but clearly you can't give it to me.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I only asked for clarification

You are asking me to disprove your belief that the earth is flat. I have given you suffiicent information to form a view about the strategy i propose. Your argument is essentially you don't believe because you don't want to believe it. That's not a real conversation. If at least once had taken some information I provided, and at the very least argued why that information or strategy is wrong, I could accept that. But this game of pretending nothing I am saying has any validity- well that's why this is a conversation over the flat earth argument. You see wha tyou want to see, and will deny what you want to deny. I am not going to debate you.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 05:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

blah blah blah

blah blah

you stop making any sense 10 comments ago. I'll listen to nraf, nod my head and move on.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yeah

We really need to paint the Republicans as obstructionists...I really wish we can get the videos of these guys on the floor I've seen on CSPAN and show "divided government doesn't work. Republicans cannot have any power"

NRaf said this is a filibuster. It sure is. Look now; McCain, Graham, Johanns, Martinez, it keeps going and going. They've been filibustering all week because we can't get 60 votes to end debate...so the debate goes on and on. If we had Franken and Kennedy and if we had beaten Collins, Martin, Wicker, any or all of them, we would've gotten what we wanted, to hell with Collins, Specter, Snowe, Nelson.

This is a filibuster and it backfired. We needed this out of the Senate five days ago.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I see your point

The Snowe/Colins effect is certainly enhanced by the left blogosphere and mainstream media which like to hold them up as reasonable repubs. If we stopped being so generous to them, the people of Maine might appreciate how bad they are for the country. Remember they always close ranks (same with Specter) when it come time to vote.

by orestes 2009-02-07 10:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: That's very true...

But it is the theme of our party; lets compromise, compromise, compromise. Let's make sure they know we are bipartison. Who gives a fuck? Let's follow the Republican model for a minute - let your government get their agenda through & let your marketer's spin & manipulate the public perception. And at the end of the day I will pay the price.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-07 08:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Ok

I doubt you would find that Collins campaigned on the notion that she would be a check on Obama.

Many people don't think in terms of partisanship or ideology, as illogical as it may seem. They like Obama, they like Collins. It doesn't get much more complicated than that.

The problem with saying "this is what the people asked for" is that it is true, by definition, of ANY result achieved by the political process. It doesn't say anything about whether a better result could have been achieved through a different approach.

by Steve M 2009-02-06 03:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

If people like Collins

whom we would need to vote for cloture, were going to oppose spending, what other approaches could've been used? Give them MORE of what they wanted?

We can't ignore them, we can't compromise with them, we can't beat them at the polls...what can we do?

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: If people like Collins

brinksmanship.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

You're not making any sense

a word is not a plan.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 03:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You're not making any sense

if you don't k now what brinksmanship means as a negotiation strategy, then look it up.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 03:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

I know what brinkmanship means

I'm not a moron, but you don't explain how they should implement such a plan. What should do they do...and saying "brinkmanship" is not an answer.

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 04:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I know what brinkmanship means

i have explained it throughout this diary

by bruh3 2009-02-06 04:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wow.

in response to other posters. if you disagree. say how you disagree and stop with the childish games.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 05:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 31 (n/t)

Like I said childish. Let me 32 to save you the trouble.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

My old Poli Sci professor

just e-mailed me and told me this whole bill would need 60 votes to pass regardless of a filibuster because it increases the deficit and any Senators can demand a 60 vote threshold on any bill or amendment that increases a deficit.

I'm looking into it, but just FYI

by DTOzone 2009-02-06 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

The latest update sums up the problem. By allowing them to continue use the fillabuster as a threat, they will control teh debate for the forseeable future. This is why it needs to be taken off the table period.

by bruh3 2009-02-06 06:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: AP: Tentative Deal On Stimulus Package Reached

Funny - why didn't WE filibuster? Why didn't WE use that during the disasterous policies that were passed. You know why? Because we were afraid of public opinion & don't have the ability to frame the issues properly that's why. So the citizens get fucked at the end of the day. Why do the Republicans have to even bother now running for office, they can just yank our strings & get things done for them.

I really hate just about everyone in office right now.

by jrsygrl 2009-02-07 08:04AM | 0 recs