someone remind me (0.00 / 0)

Is it possible to filibuster the bill after it comes out of conference committee?  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 11:58:23 AM CST

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Link.

---

by: Ron in Chicago @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 17:07:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The thing is, Chris, (0.00 / 0)

is the stimulus going to help? My read of the situation is that it won't.

It isn't close to enough to make a difference.

And my perception is that too much of it is geared to help those who have already gorged at the TARP table. Perhaps that perception is wrong, but Obama and the Dems NEED to explain how this stimulus is different from the TARP fiascos, how it is supposed to help, and level with the American people about how deep this particular hole goes.

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:08:02 PM CST

Well, one important point about the stimulus... (4.00 / 2)

...is that it contains aid DESPERATELY needed by the states to keep them functioning.

The stimulus may not "work", but it certainly is going to be bad if a dozen or so states basically default if nothing is done for them...

The vast majority of the funding of the bill is going to the states, which is why it may not be as "stimulating" as we like... it's essentially a bailout bill, bailing out the states....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:11:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But, mike, (0.00 / 0)

won't that just put off the inevitable with regard to states?

What happens when this bailout of state government is spent and they are still under water?

Where does this end?

At some point, as painful as it is going to be, everyone has to bring their bad debts and poor choices to light and let the markets re-adjust. It can't be artificially propped up anymore. The longer we put that off, the worse it is going to be.

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:18:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re (0.00 / 0)

won't that just put off the inevitable with regard to states?

why inevitable? is it a given that the state's economy won't grow?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:21:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In this particular economic environment, (0.00 / 0)

yes. Until and unless the cramdown of bad and fraudulent investments occurs, with the banks that led the way in the fraud being allowed to fail occurs (rather than bailing them out), there won't be any "just riding this out" on a state level. The problem is that there is "no money". None. We have to accept the pain that comes with acknowledging that the last 10 years (and 20, really) has been an illusion built on cheap credit, rather than actual production of goods. So unless a particular state in question is going to get back in the business of helping its businesses make something of value, no, it's not going to solve anything.

That is why Obama's vision appears to be so breath-takingly small, from my perspective. A massive investment into, say, green technology would have been a good investment, leading to, I would hope, goods and services that the world needs. We don't make enough stuff right now, and we consume too much, as a country. Until that changes, we've got huge problems ahead.

Bailing out states now won't be the end, far from it. They will be back needing help again a few months from now. Money is running out, and if we are not careful, it will take programs that we need, like Soc. Sec., out with it.

The bottom to this is SO much deeper than anyone has been told, that it is staggering to contemplate.

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:31:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No. (4.00 / 1)

The state budgets aren't due to the markets. They're due to revenues not matching outlays.

How do the states fix their budgets? Work with the federal government to grow the economy and then create a more progressive and robust tax system that raises the needed revenues to allow for the full functioning of government.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 14:27:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This problem is large enough that (0.00 / 0)

simple govt. spending in the absence of private spending will fix things. And we have seen $3 trillion dollars is wealth simply disappear from this economy in the last quarter of 2008. Poof, it's gone. And state governments are only now beginning to feel the effects of that drain on our treasure.

I never said in that previous post that state budgets were tied to markets. I said that the states are one of the canaries in the coal mine with respect to the illness that is spreading because of the fraud committed by the banks in the last 10 - 20 years. De-regulation is a vicious mistress. The contraction that is underway with the economy will not be stayed by this proposed plan, unless the money spent generates a way to get our GNP up. And I don't see anything in the plan that is remotely that audacious.

We need to make things as a country, again. Grow things. Sell actual things, not keep attempting to sell an economy based on "credit" as a sustainable enterprise. Look me up when Obama clues people in on that, I desperately hope he will.

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 15:58:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

TARP? (0.00 / 0)

How so?  Can you name a provision?


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:38:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, but that points up the confusion surrounding this (0.00 / 0)

stimulus. There is a perception this is an extension of TARP. How it is being sold needs to be re-visited. Also, whether it has a prayer of working needs to be looked at as well.

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 12:40:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course it has a prayer of working (4.00 / 1)

people have looked at this. Many times. When private demand is too low, government spending to make up the difference lessons the "bust" cycle of capitalism.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 14:28:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but (0.00 / 0)

But the question, I think mb is saying, is whether it will be enough. And that definitely doesn't have a clear answer. Some people have looked at this many times - and come to the conclusion that it won't be enough.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 15:38:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is a part of it (0.00 / 0)

1. I don't think it is NEAR enough;

2. I don't think that what there IS of it is targeted at the right things;

3. UNTIL and UNLESS we get back to making things that people need as a country, we are going to have huge problems.

4. The economy will NOT grow until #3 happens.

5. It was my hope that Obama would be dreaming big enough to pour this spending into trying to get at the forefront of renewable energy and related widgets, and help green the earth while dealing with our economy. Unfortunately, I am not seeing much of any of that, and certainly not enough.

6. It is not enough to simply "spend" at this point. For one thing, we have already poured $1 trillion dollars down a rat-hole with TARP, with no benefit for the country in general. That is money we already did not have. And now we are back to the well, with another relative drop in the bucket, and it is not something that will change the fundamentals in my view.

7. To "fix" this, as much as that is possible, Obama needs to let bad banks fail, and stop propping them up. He needs to flush all bad debt to the light of day and let people take their inevitable losses. This is NOT a market thing, but a bank thing. But the market will respond to the continued shell game, and not favorably.  We must invest as a country in ideas and industries that will provide goods for the 21st century that people need, and that are good for the world. We need a vision that is large enough for almost a "race to the moon" program. But we are not getting that. Instead, we are getting more incrementalism, while Wall Street continues its looting of the rapidly shrinking treasury. Home prices must be allowed to fall, painful as that is for all of us, because they are artificially high, put that way by unsound lending practices and graft and corruption from the banks. Do all of that, and couple it with a proper spending program, and maybe we have a chance. But simply spending? Without addressing the other issues? It won't be enough. And it won't be enough at the levels they are currently talking about spending.  

---

by: membengal @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 15:52:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

conrad / nelson (0.00 / 0)

can't they vote for cloture and then vote no?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:22:18 PM CST

the gregg reference brought hilda solis to mind? (0.00 / 0)

will they confirm her sometime this year?

why doesn't barack make some noise?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:24:16 PM CST

edit: no '?' at the end of the title (0.00 / 0)

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:25:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good question. (0.00 / 0)

Haven't heard lately what's going on there.  

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 14:29:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I read Collins (4.00 / 2)

as being in the Nelson camp

http://thehill.com/leading-the...

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said on CNN's State of the Union that they would have a hard time voting for the House bill.

I think a deal will have to be struck with them to get cloture.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 13:40:41 PM CST

Still though (4.00 / 2)

 I can't imagine Nelson filibustering the bill. Maybe vote no on final passage?

Put more in for rural broadband and call it a day.

---

by: adamterando @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 14:30:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True (4.00 / 1)

But I think he'll probably get NIH funding and other tiny, unimportant things taken out in exchange for that vote. Hopefully he won't get the Pell Grants and Collins will vote yes after getting more infrastructure money in.

That leaves only Conrad who seems to line up with the Republican demands on housing (which should be done with TARP) I suspect the housing amendments will be passed, some small tidbits will be stripped out, more infrastructure will be passed and the final bill will pass with 60 votes not counting Kennedy.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 15:12:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Franken (4.00 / 1)

We need the vote.  The "trial" in its second week is going slower than expected.  The Star Tribune seems to be very pro-Coleman in its coverage when I checked today.  They are bankrupt.  What's up?  

Does Conrad want to be bought off?  What about Nelson or Specter?  $10 billion would go awful far in North Dakota or Nebreaska.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 14:12:48 PM CST

This thing is going to pass. (4.00 / 1)

It's not in the Republicans' interest to successfully filibuster the bill. If they do that, the economy immediately becomes their responsibility, but with no upside for them if the economy improves. If they let it pass by a single vote, then the economy is entirely the Democrats' responsibility. Ideal for them would be to water the stimulus down as much as possible and then let it pass.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 15:41:20 PM CST

re (0.00 / 0)

If they let it pass by a single vote, then the economy is entirely the Democrats' responsibility.

entirely? I hope some people know who screwed things up

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 17:45:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Make The Bastards (0.00 / 0)

come to the Senate floor and engage in an actual filibuster, day after day, night after night.  That will make for engaging theater as markets around the world crash.

---

by: bob h @ Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 16:46:12 PM CST