Stimulus Open Thread

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 22:23


Ben Nelson has saved us all!

"We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows," Nelson said as debate began.

According to several senators, the revised version of the plan axed money for school construction and nearly $90 million for fighting pandemic flu, among other things.

Thank God that someone worth $10 million was able to cut "sacred cows" like school construction and flu prevention! Whatever would we do without such guardians of the public interest! More:

In the end, there were $96 billion of cuts - whittling the Senate bill to $780 billion - with about $50 billion of the cuts coming from the Collins-Nelson proposal. Most of the cuts came in school construction, teacher funding and higher education.A $15,000 tax credit for new home purchases, which was proposed by Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), remains in the measure.

All the final details have not yet been released, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an evening floor speech that Democrats "had to swallow real hard" to accept many of the cuts.

We don't need no education!

There is a very cute stereotype that bloggers (all one hundred million of us) are rich white kids from the suburbs. However, the truth is that of the four people in my "family unit" (me, Natasha, my brother and my sister-in-law who live n the apartment above me) two of us have lost our jobs in the last three months. Both of the jobs lost were in education related fields--so, yey that there is now virtually no education funding is in the stimulus! Work is spotty, and health insurance is spottier. Unless the COBRA benefits for the unemployed are reinstated in the conference report, we will have multiple people in our family unit without health insurance, too.

I've heard that you are supposed to get more conservative when you get older. The older I get, the more I am convinced that "moderates" like Susan Collins and Ben Nelson--so beloved by the media--are simply rich corporate hacks who seek to destroy the American middle class by subtler means than the likes of Bush.

This is a bill that literally hits home. I have nothing but antipathy for the fudruckers who sought these cuts. When we kick their ass on the electoral field in two, four of six years, the media will undoubtedly call us ideological extremists taking out our psychological frustrations on decent moderates who keep American civility afloat. The good thing is that the voters who get rid of them will know the real reason. People like Susan Collins and Ben Nelosn are destroying lives. At the very least, they deserve to be out of a job as a result.

Let's fix this in the conference. This is an open thread on the stimulus.
Chris Bowers :: Stimulus Open Thread

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Stimulus Open Thread | 180 comments
It can't be fixed in conference (0.00 / 0)
I don't see how we can expect much fixing, except for some real minor tinkering.  Seems to me that the final version has to be closer to the senate version, since there is less room to lose votes there than in the House.

If fixing will happen, I think it has to happen down in the road, months from now.

It can be fixed in conference .. (4.00 / 2)
if what I heard is right .. once it goes to conference .. it can't be filibustered when it comes back .. so we shall see .. and that means everyone needs to be making phone calls .. and also .. call Senators and Reps anywhere near you(especially if they are up in 2010) ... and tell them you'll have to work defeat them if they don't do what the people want(not the lobbyists)
[ Parent ]
If it can't be filibustered... (4.00 / 2)
...which I think is correct, then we should be in good shape...

BTW, this Senate bill requires 60 votes regardless of filibustering... Senate rules require 60 votes for any bill that increases the deficit.  That's important to note....

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!

[ Parent ]
I didn't even think of that (4.00 / 2)
why isn't this being pointed out more often
[ Parent ]
I don't understand these rules (0.00 / 0)
Why can't it be filibustered?  It can't be so simple that the conference can do whatever it want, so long as the senate than has 51 votes.

I know you said that this particular senate bill requires 60 votes for increasing the deficit, but I still would like some clarification of the filibuster rule.

[ Parent ]
Once out of conference (4.00 / 2)
the bill is not debated, just voted on, so there is no opportunity to filibuster and the filibuster comes during the debate and 60 votes are needed to end the debate.

That's what I've been told.  

[ Parent ]
But that IS a filibuster (4.00 / 1)
I.e. endless debate intended to prevent a final vote, ended only by a cloture vote or the filibustering side giving up.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)
[ Parent ]
but there's no debate (4.00 / 1)
after conference, that's the point.

The debate is now.  

[ Parent ]
Sure there's debate (0.00 / 0)
The question is whether it's time-limited by rules, or open-ended.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)
[ Parent ]
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
That sucks... learned something new today.
[ Parent ]
The fool... (4.00 / 12)
Repbulicans hated the idea of school construction 'cos it would be a visible edifice to the usefulness of government spending and would win over voters in the future to our side.

Nelson fell into that trap hook, line and sinker... moron!

The flu thing... fine... no one will see it, but when you see new schools, revitilzing communities.... well, that is tangible.... you can see it!

And the republicans know it, which is why they tried killing that portion.

Pelosi is adamant that education funding be restored, and I think she can get most of it back in conference...

Oh, and I've gotten more liberal as I've gotten older... so have my parents... you can thiank Gingirch and Bush for that...

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!

Fat, dumb and broke - that's us ... n.t (0.00 / 0)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
I am a retired teacher.... (4.00 / 15)
four decades in public education.
I have been a liberal all of my adult life and the truth is I have gotten MORE liberal, the older I get.
I am angry as h*ll, even though most of this does not affect me personally.  My pension is good, and relatively safe.....and I have never had enough money to actually invest in much, except my house.  Yes, that's losing value but I am not starving.  No one depends on me anymore.  Maybe some day I will be in one of those "poor" nursing homes. I don't care.

What I do care about is education, public education. I do still believe it can and should be the "equalizer" in our society.  And, not surprisingly, it is the first thing that was cut. I did write my senators, both dems, not that it matters.  

I have been venting on the blogs.  
Clearly I am not a rich white kid from the burbs. I am a 63 year old female, retired teacher who started battling the right wing back in 1968.  I thought we made a difference.  It is sad to be on the downhill side of life and know so many people still do not get it; still look their noses down on education as unimportant; still are all about greed, corporate and personal.  Damn!

I'm 75 and I know exactly how you feel (0.00 / 0)
The older I get the more stupid congress and the president seem to me. I don't get why they don't get it. The stupid Bush people in my neon red town (who voted for McCain) get it. And they are saying I told you so about Obama to me. Some change, they say, all Clinton people.

And godammit they are right.

[ Parent ]
Obama is the problem here? (4.00 / 1)
Sure, he should have come out swinging and forgotten about the whole bipartisan nonsense, and not conceded provisions so easily. But the villains here are clearly Repubs, and right-wing Dems who care only about keeping their seats. What pork was in these bills was minimal, less than 1% of the whole bill. Most of these provisions were for good programs that would have stimulated the economy and done good things. But a bunch of craven hacks joined with a bunch of craven ideologues and sociopathic nutjobs to prevent it, because St. Ronnie told them that Welfare Queens don't deserve squat and they worship at his psychotic altar.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)
[ Parent ]
I think once a day (4.00 / 2)
the "I told you so" trolls come by and leave their marks  
[ Parent ]
Bush people are saying that (0.00 / 0)
really? lol. Funny the Bush people who voted for McCain by me are calling Obama a Communist for wanted to spend money at all

I haven't met one yet who are saying "I told you so" "All Clinton people"

Clinton supporters on the other hand...

[ Parent ]
In my day, when we trolled (0.00 / 0)
we trolled hard, and we trolled good. Not this weak ass shiznit.
[ Parent ]
I am concerned... (0.00 / 0)


The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)
[ Parent ]
Maybe for some .. (4.00 / 4)
I've heard that you are supposed to get more conservative when you get older.

but the older I get .. the more I despise people like Susan Collins .. Ben Nelson .. and HoJo .. I wonder what Ben Nelson's constituents think about his hatin' on teachers and the like

LOL (4.00 / 3)
I wonder what Ben Nelson's constituents think about his hatin' on teachers and the like

Considering they just voted for people like Mike Johanns and Sarah Palin, I think they're giving him a nice round of applause.  

[ Parent ]
Well, the ones in Omaha voted for Obama. (4.00 / 1)
And Lincoln is pretty liberal, too.

My family is from Nebraska.  There are a lot of lizard-brain types there, but mostly the people just want to be left alone when it comes to government and taxes (though they're totally dependent on farm subsidies, and some that I know even see the hypocrisy in that).

[ Parent ]
Which convinces me (4.00 / 2)
that one of the most helpful things that Obama could do, which he is uniquely qualified to do both in terms of his oratorical skills and likeability and his job, is to "re-educate" the country away from the conservative Reaganesque ideological spell that it's been under for the past 20-40 years, which has caused so much damage, by convincing lots of Americans that they didn't need government, that taxes could forever be cut without consequences, that liberalism was weak and evil, that they were all going to be gazillionaires someday and thus should support the interests of the rich, etc. Reagan was masterful in instilling this hack ideology in peoples' minds, and Obama has the ability to undo it, over time, with both actions and words, just as FDR did in the 30's. And he has to, because the past couple of elections were more about dissatisfaction with Republicans and their policies than about an outright rejection of conservative ideology or embrace of liberalism, and there's still the danger of a swing back to the right if Obama and Dems don't get it right fast enough. People have got to start thinking once again in terms of conservatism being wrong and liberalism being right, not just for them, but in general, for society as a whole. As the right knows, ideas matter.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)
[ Parent ]
No lie! (0.00 / 0)
I may not be getting demonstrably more liberal, but I am definitely hating, more and more, the way the Democrats capitulate for Republican Presidencies and compromise for Democratic ones.  I only got thirty years of memories, but I wonder how long I'll have to live to see a group of Democrats who represent anything but the center-rich.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't it always seem like... (4.00 / 4)
... the middle-class is always the one asked to "swallow hard"?
I've been emailing all evening. (4.00 / 4)
To Reid/Kennedy/Kerry and every other liberal Senator I could think of, I encouraged they vote against the revised bill.  

To Ben Nelson, I advised him that he is a disloyal, anti-american fiscal conservative.  He says he is a Democrat but he doesn't feel any connection with the National party or the mandates issued to his Presidential candidate in the last election.  If he wants to side with the moderate republicans to undermine his parties elected president, then he should either run for the Senate seat as a Republican or he should run for the House seat in his congressional district as whatever party affiliation he chooses.  In the meantime, he IS a Democrat and should be supporting his party's PRESIDENT.  

To Nancy Pelosi, I asked that she stick to the House bill and even consider eliminating all tax cuts in the compromised bill.  I would rather the watered down bill be rejected and the process be restarted than accept some POS conservative legislation.  

I would rather we choose up sides now and get on with the real fighting now.  What good is 1/2 of a stimulus bill?   The D's have a mandate off of the last election and I think it is time to pursue it.  Fuck Ben Nelson and the horse he rode in on!

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

Regardless (0.00 / 0)
lord mike just reminded me that because this bill would increase the deficit, we still need 60 votes meaning we still have to get Nelson and some Republicans on our side.

We can't pass the bill with 50 votes

[ Parent ]
PASS?? (0.00 / 0)
Oh, you want the bill to actually pass?  Why didn't you say that in the first place?  :-)
[ Parent ]
I'm saying (0.00 / 0)
we can't pass ANY bill with 60 votes, so whatever stimulus plan you want would require 60 votes. Do you think your plan will win over any Republicans, cause we need at least 2 if Kennedy shows up and Nelson sticks with us.
[ Parent ]
The way you get those votes (4.00 / 4)
Isn't by closed door negotiation, but by making a BIG public stink out of this.

Make Ben Nelson and Susan Collins defend mass teacher layoffs.

THAT is how you get to 60 votes.

Come on people, politics isn't that hard.

[ Parent ]
It is (0.00 / 0)
when you can't make a stink because the media is defending the people who want to cut education and it is when they don't care what you say about them.

back door negotiations are what's going on, we're just not winning them.

Politics IS that hard.  

[ Parent ]
BTW (4.00 / 1)
Ben Nelson stood up and said the cuts to education would not result in teacher layoffs, which we know is true, but guess what, until we prove otherwise, voters in Nebraska and Maine are going to believe the Senators they reeelction by wide margins and have a high approval of.

It's easy for lies to be disguised as truth...that's what the media does nowadays.  

[ Parent ]
ugh (0.00 / 0)
which we know is NOT true, sorry
[ Parent ]
robert what kind of campaign can you think can happen to pressure these folks? (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Sarcasm/Snark (0.00 / 0)
I think you need to recheck your sarcasm/snark detector.  I'm agreeing with you.
[ Parent ]
Not sure that applies after conference..... (0.00 / 0)
...only in the senate...

But, I'm not sure..

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!

[ Parent ]
Well either way (0.00 / 0)
we need 60 to get to conference.  
[ Parent ]
Do you folks simply NOT understand that the bill (4.00 / 1)
will not pass unless it gets 60 votes? We have 58 Democratic Senators currently.  Unless my math is off 58 does not equal 60. They have no choice but to get at least two Republicans to join them.  Period.  

Now, if I'm completely wrong about this, please, feel free to correct me.  I'd love to hear you all out. But I'm pretty damn sure that we either have to compromise to get to 60, or we don't pass the bill.

There's no other option.  And considering how vehemently opposed the Republican senators are to any stimulus package, much less the one we currently have (which again, will end up at a significant $820B or so), I just don't see how it's possible to pass a bill that has even more to it.  I wish we had 65 senators to work with or that the rules were more like they are in the house in terms of voting, but it is how it is.  

We won't be able to get most stuff passed unless we get 60 votes, not 51.

[ Parent ]
Sure there's an option (4.00 / 8)
We wage a public campaign targeting the education funding and targeting Ben Nelson and Susan Collins.

You're assuming their stance is set in stone. It is not.

One classic definition of political power I was taught by political scientists is "making someone do what they don't want to do."

Do Ben Nelson and Susan Collins really, truly want to be known publicly as the people who sent tens of thousands of teachers to the unemployment line?

This fight is not yet over.

[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
Neither Collins nor Nelson are up for reelection in the near future, like they care?

If we couldn't bring down Collins last year, we never will...and as far as Nelson, Nebraska may be one of those states that responds "Good, those greedy teachers deserve it!"

This IS the state that send Mike fucking Johanns to the Senate.  

[ Parent ]
What is your point? ... (4.00 / 1)
Wisconsin sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate .. and yet 30 yrs(or so) later sent Russ Feingold
[ Parent ]
So we'll get a progressive (4.00 / 1)
from Nebraska elected in 2038? Great!  
[ Parent ]
Nebraska is also the state (4.00 / 4)
That gave one of its electoral votes to Barack Obama.

I think the reality is much more complicated than you are willing to admit. This is not an easy fight but it is not the same as Canute commanding the tides.

[ Parent ]
so? (0.00 / 0)
He won one district by 1300 votes? You think Ben Nelson is shaking in his boots? please
[ Parent ]
Silver Lining (4.00 / 6)
Looks like the silver lining here is that Pres. Obama has probably figured out which Republican senators are actually willing to work with him and negotiate in good faith--and which ones aren't.  That's valuable information.  Once Al Franken is sworn in and Ted Kennedy returns, Obama's hand will be strengthened further.  Sure, getting around the filibuster is tough but the Senate Republicans are in a position where they will probably need 100% party unity to stop the Democrats.  That's tough to achieve, especially considering that a handful of their senators are from blue states.
[ Parent ]
I think this case is hard to make given (0.00 / 0)
the current state of the media debate over the stimulus.  It's all Republicans all the time.
[ Parent ]
Time is of the essence (4.00 / 5)
I don't disagree with those of you who see themselves as steadfast realists, reminding us, no matter our anger and dismay, of the political realities of the Senate vote distribution, but there's another reality which concerns me more. Presuming that Krugman and Stiglitz are correct -- which I personally don't think is presumptuous at all -- this compromise stimulus bill is 1) half as big as needed, and 2) structured to fail.

Worse than that, the window of opportunity for an effective stimulus is very narrow. If we really are on the brink of a deflationary spiral, delay may leave us in a situation in which even truly enormous infrastructure spending, of the kind that Japan has had in place since the Nineties, may very well not prove effective.

I'm no soothsayer, but if the above analysis is correct, it's hard not to see genuine doom approaching. For whatever reasons, the right -- be it Republican or Blue Dog Democrat -- clearly intends to persist in its current folly. By the time they wake up, it may be that none of our current economic or political tools will still retain the power to return us to the status quo ante.

At that point, the reality I worry about takes over, the reality which says that all of our economic and political assumptions will once again be questionable, and will in fact be questioned. In 1932, the future was far more uncertain than we today can imagine, more uncertain even than it was on the afternoon following the first battle of Bull Run. It concerns me that everyone, even we DFHs, has agreed that such a situation in our own time is unthinkable.

I'm sorry, but I believe that someone ought to think about it, and who better than we, who can at least imagine what might happen if the choice four years from now comes down to an Obama who's still wearing his Kerensky mask and Sarah Palin or General Petraeus on a white horse. What then, comrades?

[ Parent ]
1/2 of the stimulus bill leads to failure. Did you get that? (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
The problem is that A LOT of this stuff, while not adding up to much (0.00 / 0)
given the total cost of this package (still 800B+ when some amendments that passed are added in), should have never been in a stimulus package to begin with.

I don't understand why they were there to begin with.  There will be many other opportunities to fund some of these projects in the upcoming years.

Not necessarily (4.00 / 7)
Anything that creates jobs is stimulus, and anything, like extra money for food stamps, that provides basic necessities for people who spend everything they make every single month, creates immediate stimulus.

After this bill, paygo is back. Everything anyone wants to spend is going to be taken out of the same damn programs, help for the poor, unemployed, uninsured, single mothers and children, that are being cut right now. Because the m*f*ers who think it's wasteful spending to help them out today are going to think it's wasteful to help them out next year.

Do you think we can all wait for 'coming years' to get healthcare? Do you think families that are hungry now can wait for 'coming years' for help with the groceries? Or do you just not give a damn?

[ Parent ]
I understand, but we're not talking about healthcare right now (4.00 / 1)
Don't worry, when the debate moves to health care and other things, the public will be much more on the side of the Democrats.  Senators and house members represent the people.

The stimulus package is tricky, because we're not sure it'll work and it's very hard to communicate the message to the public because many won't be helped by it.  But health care hits home BIG.  There is an enormous cry for health care reform by the public.

And any politician voting against the interests of their constituents will pay dearly when it comes to re-election.

[ Parent ]
And cutting education funding won't be noticed? (4.00 / 6)
School boards across the country are trying to figure out what to cut from the budget in meetings happening right now. When schools get closed people notice. When the number of students in a classroom goes up, people notice. When schools cut to a four day week, people notice.

I'll also say that we're actually pretty sure this stimulus won't work. Without the education funding, I don't see much reason to pass this package at all: the rest of it can wait, and the amount of spending won't come close to turning the economy around. All this does is to set up the Republicans to say in 6 months that the last stimulus didn't do anything so we don't need another one.

Finally, it's not that hard to communicate the message to the public: a plurality supported it throughout, rising to a majority when pollsters gave specific information about what the package contained. The media likes a controversy, but the people understand that this stimulus is absolutely needed. If Obama had actually been trying to communicate the message to the public over the last month, there would have been overwhelming support - probably enough to head off these bastard Senate moderates.

[ Parent ]
I disagree, but I appreciate where you're coming from (0.00 / 0)
But unfortunately, I don't think school funding is on the top of the agenda for most people.  Some people truly believe that while we have to maintain good school structures and enough funding, we can't just throw money at the problem.

There has to be a complete turn-around.  

Having said that, I'm not even sure how much money was taken out of the education aspect of this bill, so it's unfair to criticize just yet.

[ Parent ]
Have you been to a school board meeting lately? (4.00 / 6)
Do you have any kids in school?

People get it - if there isn't extra money from the feds NOW, schools will be closed and teachers will be fired.

That should actually be, MORE schools will be closed and MORE teachers will be fired - the closings and the firings are already happening.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
and it sucks, but unless we can figure out how to balance the budget, there's not a damn thing we can do about it.  
[ Parent ]
Balance what budget???? (4.00 / 6)
We're at the edge of a depression. This is no time to balance any government budget. Unfortunately, most government budgets other than the Feds have to be balanced.

If you take the side of the self-identified liberal/progressive economists, then you believe Keynes was right and you believe that this is a time for deficit spending like there's no tomorrow.

If you believe that we need to worry about balancing the budget, you're out of step with universally accepted progressive economic theory.

The only way to balance local school district budgets now is if the Federal government gives states the money to balance those budgets. And the amount in the House stimulus package wasn't even enough to balance most district budgets - it just would have greatly lessened the damage.

[ Parent ]
Unless we can balance the budget (0.00 / 0)
we need 60 votes to get this through is what I'm saying.

[ Parent ]
No, but my father taught public school for nearly 40 (0.00 / 0)
years and continues to teach today (college).

I'm not blind to these concerns.  But I do see results.  School levies fail constantly in and around my district, this DESPITE school closings and teachers being laid off.  

[ Parent ]
I should have qualified that (0.00 / 0)
because I know some of the reason for that is because of the way we fund our schools isn't to the liking of the public, so they vote against these levies.
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I've seen it happen on Long Island...a lot of people just don't seem to be willing to spend the money on schools...it's very disappointing.  
[ Parent ]
People are upside donw in their houses.... (0.00 / 0)
...that's the price of the boom falling... they can barely pay their mortgage... they are going to vote against property taxes 'cos they can't afford it.

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!
[ Parent ]
It's an economic paradox (0.00 / 0)
What's good for the individual isn't necessarily good for the economy as a whole. That's the source of the deflationary trap: deflation starts, it gets harder to pay off debt, so people tighten their belts, which means consumption goes down, which means prices drop to get people to buy, which is more inflation. The individual does what's in her/his best interest, but the economy goes downhill anyway.

Most people get that what's in their best interest isn't necessarily in the country's best interest. That's why we have representative democracy. So just because people won't go out and vote to raise their own taxes doesn't mean they won't understand when the government has to run a deficit to maintain schools.

You lack esteem for your fellow citizens.

[ Parent ]
School funding = property taxes (4.00 / 1)
In the current crunch, property values are going down and property taxes will go up.  In states where there is a constitutional requirement for equal funding state sales taxes and income taxes will go up, too.  The majority of the property tax goes to the schools with the cops and the jails next in line.
[ Parent ]
We are talking about healthcare for some (0.00 / 0)
Help for COBRA payments is a healthcare matter. Considering how many people have been laid off recently and how long they may continue being unemployed, or that they may have to take new jobs that don't have any prospect of healthcare, to that extent healthcare is very much on the table.

Also, many of the spending cuts they're talking about downthread in state budgets will mean that state and local public health initiatives are likely to get cut. They always do.

Reproductive healthcare assistance was already cut out of this package, and this may come as a surprise, but that's a pretty big *ing healthcare-related deal to a lot of families.

These are marginal supports for people in marginal economic circumstances. Supplements to the barest minimum help that has survived the last 8 years. Not funding these things means more families fall off a financial cliff. Think it'll be cheap to pick up the pieces after that?

[ Parent ]
Local health is being gutted right now in CA. (0.00 / 0)
It's really bad.  
[ Parent ]
The biggest problem here (4.00 / 2)
is people have no frickin clue what's in this bill and they're being bombared by lies saying it's all pork and everything that's being cut is spending that wouldn't work.

When we're focusing on one issue, it'll be easier to convince the American people because it's something specific they (supposedly) want (healthcare, education, etc.)

Whether we do it right is another story.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, that's basically my point (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The American people supported this stimulus throughout. (4.00 / 2)
Even when pollsters told them specifically what was in it. The public got it. If Obama had put some effort into actually selling the plan, I can't see how the public wouldn't have been even more behind it - even if he had asked for the $1.2 trillion that's actually needed.

The media is another story, but if there's one less from the media's bullshit over the last month it's that the media is irrelevant: the polling on the stimulus didn't change.

[ Parent ]
What the public think doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans don't care about public opinion, we've learned that already.

If the eocnomy doesn't get better, they have the upper hand, so they're not fearing for their jobs.

My point was because the American people don't know what's in it, it was easier to lie about what was in it.  

[ Parent ]
The American people supported this stimulus throughout. (0.00 / 0)
Even when pollsters told them specifically what was in it. The public got it. If Obama had put some effort into actually selling the plan, I can't see how the public wouldn't have been even more behind it - even if he had asked for the $1.2 trillion that's actually needed.

The media is another story, but if there's one less from the media's bullshit over the last month it's that the media is irrelevant: the polling on the stimulus didn't change.

[ Parent ]
Long wait (0.00 / 0)
Truman first asked for Medicare in 1945 and couldn't get it passed.  It wasn't until 1965, 20 years later, that Medicare was enacted.

In 1993-94 Bill Clinton tried to get universal health coverage.  It never even came to a vote.

Now in 2009, we have the possibility for a third try.  Paygo and deficit hawks in a major recession will kill this for another 15 or 20 years.  

There have been two major down spirals in the last 150 years.  The Panic of 1894 resulted in six consecutive years of unemployment topping 10% (1893-1898).  How did the public react?  The party that controlled the House (the Democrats)lost a record 125 seats in the election of 1894.  The Great Depression had 11 consecutive years where unemployment topped 10% (1930-1940).  How did the public react?  The party that controlled the House lost 50 seats in 1930 and 97 more in 1932 (total of 147).

A lot is on the table.  The public will not have much patience for half efforts to placate "moderates."  The party in control of the House will take the hit for half measures.  That's you, Mr. Ben.  I don't think Specter and Grassley and the Maine prima donnas will fare so well either as they are tied to this mess.

[ Parent ]
Mixed Feelings On My Part (4.00 / 1)
1). While you're right that any spend is a stimulus, some spend is a helluva lot more stimulating than other spend. And since our mission with this bill is to directly induce a strong spike in demand that will create millions of jobs and change the psychology of the consumer, anything that has little impact on demand should not be considered in a stimulus bill. A separate bill, fine, but not anything called a stimulus bill.

2). We shouldn't overload this bill with everyone's favorite cause.
A. There is no need to cram the entire '30s into one bill. Nor is that likely to be effective in implementation.
B. It would be dishonorable for us to bundle every progressive idea, and then claim that the opposition must vote it for it, or they risk a Depression. Sounds quite "Bushy" to me.

Having said that, there is no sign that I can tell that Nelson, Collins, or any of the other "centrists" went through the paring process with any of the above in mind. Many of the things that were cut were those items that would have had the most impact. School construction & infrastructure (after food stamps) are the two categories with the greatest multiplier effect.

I think goal of the opposition is to 1)defeat any bill, and if that isn't possible 2) make sure the bill that passes doesn't actually do anything. Notice that everything that was cut were items that would be quite tangible to the common man...people would see what government had done on their behalf.

And I'm actually quite angry with Nelson about that. I may have to do some research on his legislative record, financial dealings, campaign donations, etc.

[ Parent ]
As far as the bill overall (0.00 / 0)
It's much better than doing nothing, although I hope Pelosi's House gives it a substantive upgrade.

Besides, I think our side needs a win, and our President is at his best when he's just a little cocky, LOL.

I'm guessing Krugman would have the same take as me...  

[ Parent ]
Sure (4.00 / 1)
I can see chopping out some of that stuff. The flu thing, and the NSF thing, they're worthy projects, but probably don't need to be in this bill. But they chopped out tens of billions for education and things like school construction that are really strongly stimulative. I mean, money for teachers is going to save jobs right now. Building schools will make jobs right now, and you know, you get schools out of the deal.

And they keep the AMT fix? OK, whatever the merits of that, it's not significant economic stimulus.

That on top of transit and infrastructure generally haven gotten the shaft, it's just too much.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Many other opportunities? (4.00 / 7)
Are you serious?  You see the pissing contest going on about shit that helps people and creates jobs but you're willing to wait for "other opportunities"?  What is it about these obstructionist assholes that you don't get?  

My wife is a middle school teacher in a suburban school district.  She has already seen several of her kids come in nervous and distracted.  When she tries to counsel them she finds out that the parents are "drinking more" and "fighting more".  

We have a serious and deepening situation in America.  The economic disparities, which have been exacerbated over the last 8 years, are destroying the social fabric of what we have always recognized to be America.  We can't be looking to build some kind of consensus over the coming years.  This is it!  The election was a mandate; USE IT OR LOSE IT!  

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
I'm not even sure how to respond to that (0.00 / 0)
Except to say that in the long run, we'll be much better off confronting these issues with separate bills.

And since you mentioned Education, I'll leave you with this.  While some education funding is very much stimulus, I sure as hell don't want Education reform to be lumped into a stimulus package.

[ Parent ]
In the long run, we're all dead. (4.00 / 1)
Keynes pointed that out.

You honestly think that it'll be any easier to get to 60 votes on any of this stuff in separate bills? Especially with Republicans ramping up their demand to reinstate PAYGO rules?

At this point, Obama and the Dems will have to try for one hell of a lot of extra deficit spending in later bills, but I can't see that they wouldn't have been better off going for $1.3 trillion now.

[ Parent ]
Whos to say (0.00 / 0)
$1.3 trillion wouldn't have been cut down to what we have now either?

[ Parent ]
Come on, did you seriously just suggest that (0.00 / 0)
the Democrats would have had a better chance at passing a $1.3 trillion bill than an $800 billion bill?

Where is that reasoning coming from?

They still have to get 60 votes and with a package that large, you can be rest assured several Democrats wouldn't go for it.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 4)
what I was saying is that all the honest economists agree that we have to spend more than $1 trillion to deal with the problem.

You were arguing that that it'll be easier to get to that amount of deficit spending bit by bit through the year. I disagree - I don't see that the next piece of deficit spending can possibly be easier than this one.

I honestly do not see a reasonable chance of getting funding to close state budget gaps if it doesn't come in this bill. Had Obama asked for $1.3 trillion, and had he really sold it to the public, yes - a bunch would have been cut, but it wouldn't have been whittled down to $780 billion, and the funding for schools would almost certainly still be in there.

[ Parent ]
And we're saying (0.00 / 0)
there is no way we were getting $1 trillion through the Senate.

So what do we do?

[ Parent ]
Two philosophies: (4.00 / 1)
We won't get it, so why bother asking?

Why not ask? The worst that can happen is they'll turn us down.

I wish Obama had gone with the second rather than the first. He would have actually had the full support of the progressive economists backing him, instead of a bunch of disappointed economists. He would have really fired up his base by asking for what's needed rather than catering to the Republicans. And if in the end it had been whittled down, at least nobody could say "What if...?"

[ Parent ]
Actually when he asked for this (4.00 / 1)
most economists I saw were saying $800 billion was enough.

Remember, this began over a month ago.

I started hearing the $1 trillion figure after the inauguaration.  

[ Parent ]
Krugman (4.00 / 4)
Krugman said he needed twice the $800 billion.  He won this year's Nobel prize in economics so he;s no hack.  I never saw or read a single thing that said that $800 billion was enough although I saw a lot of republican things that just objected to pork, government spending in general, etc.

It's a moving target and circumstances as you say have gotten worse.  having 8% + unemployment for years because Ben Nelson "fried up the bacon" is ridiculous.

Gut his ag subsidies and close SAC for all I care.  Thwen Nebraska will howl.

[ Parent ]
I have my issues with Krugman (0.00 / 0)
About a year ago, he was at a conference I was at where he referred to Obama supporters as "cultish" and pretty much implied he'd vote for McCain over Obama or sit out the election. Also, his Nobel has to do with trade.

And he first criticized the $800 billion number AFTER Congress and then President-elect Obama announced that was the number. Before that, most economists I saw estimated $600-$700 billion would be enough. That was the number Obama threw around in November, where was Krugman then?

[ Parent ]
One bite at the apple (4.00 / 1)
The plan needed to be start big and trade down but get as big a package as possible before the Ebeneezer Scrooges took charge.  We need as much tangible evidsence (roads, schools, dams, bridges, post offices, gardens, planetariums or whatever as possible.  People could see some progress with FDR and they could see tangible benefits (the aforementioned plus the TVA and rural electrification among many others).

Unless we show results, this is it.  The tax cuts for business are billions poured down the drain and serious economists say this is not enough by a long shot.

Remember in November 1982 unemployment was a stunning 10.8% and Reagan looked politically on the ropes.  Two years later it was still over 7% but that was enough to claim "morning in America."  We don't need to beat this problem totally to stay in power but we need to show we have a plan and it is taking America in the right direction.

[ Parent ]
You're paying attention. (4.00 / 3)
This is absolutely the maginot line.  Lose here and Obama will be lucky to get anything other than a business tax cut through in the next 3 years.  If the situation were reversed, the R's would let this bill vanish.  Then they would propose a bill that the Dems just love and their constituents would hold them to the fire over.

So, how about letting this stimulus die and then taking up funding for the Iraq war, Afghan war, the troops there, new defense weapons and all the other crazy horseshit that the repugs and their base just adore.  Debate it to a fucking bloody pulp and then attach $850Bn of stimulus (no tax cuts, just spendeing) and dare them to vote it down!!  That is exactly what those despicable "so-called" fucking patriots would do!  

Isn't it about time the Dems started to beat the asshats at their own duplicitous game?

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
Maybe that's next (4.00 / 2)
it's how we got minimum wage hikes passed
[ Parent ]
State Budgets are being done NOW (4.00 / 3)
This minute. Staate budgets are done in the spring.  We can not wait for another bill, later.  If the education money and other state funding gap fillers are not passed, the states will have to cut.  That is hundreds of thousands more job.  That will HARM the economy.  

There is no good economic reason for them, indeed there is an absolute mandatory necessity to have the bill be bigger, better and keep these items in.

Ben Nelson is sacrificing the country to the altar of bipartisanship...a false god.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The education funding is needed NOW (4.00 / 6)
Most states - not just some, but most - are looking at making major cuts to education funding because tax receipts are in free fall. In California tens of thousands of teachers are going to get a pink slip between now and March 15.

The only way to stop that was the state education assistance funds that Nelson and Collins gutted.

There isn't time to do this later. It must be done NOW.

[ Parent ]
Do you understand (0.00 / 0)
that we cannot do it without 60 votes because we have a deficit and the GOP couldn't care less about how the public feels?

[ Parent ]
I don't think you do. (4.00 / 3)
Here in California, your analysis is spot on. Republicans are burning down the state as we speak and refuse to listen to reason because they are completely captive to the far right.

Is that true of the GOP Senate caucus? Is that true of Ben Nelson?

Who here, you included, truly believes that at the end of the day there's no way at all to force Collins, Snowe, and Specter - to name three obvious ones - to step back from the brink on the education cuts?

You are assuming that "we don't have 60 votes" is like a law of thermodynamics, something no human being can change. That is just plain false. Will it be easy? No, and I never said it would be.

But we can get those votes if we get off our ass and organize to get them. And even if we fail? I'd rather go down fighting.

[ Parent ]
I do (0.00 / 0)
I do not believe they can be moved...it's going to take people starving to death on the steps of the Capitol to move these people.

I've been listening to them all week, they are relentless.

I'm not saying don't go after them...I just don't think we're going to get them.

[ Parent ]
Specter can be moved .... (4.00 / 1)
he's running in '10 ... and if he doesn't have the union support .. he's screwed .. lets see him vote down the stimulus and try to get re-elected ... because he won't
[ Parent ]
Maybe you aren't saying don't go after them (0.00 / 0)
but you are saying we should give up. "We don't have a choice" is something you wrote further down thread.

It's one thing to find it unlikely the stimulus bill will get better. It's another to argue that the crappy bill we're stuck with is the best we'll get, and the best we could possibly get.

I don't believe that this is the best we could have gotten. I believe that if Obama had honestly asked for what the economists said is needed, that if Obama had gotten serious about selling the plan, that if Obama had used his resources to inundate congress with public support for that plan, congress would be passing a far better stimulus bill. Probably not everything the economists say is needed, but much closer than the one we've got.

[ Parent ]
We don't have a choice with this bill (0.00 / 0)
is what I'm saying...sure we can organize and put pressure on them, but not for this bill, we can't sit on this for another 3-4 weeks...and we won't.

How do you suppose we would've gotten a better bill if Obama asked for it?  

[ Parent ]
He could have started above 1 trillion, 1.3 trillion (3.20 / 5)
He could have put just the payroll tax cut in it.  Then when the R's and the dangerous Dems like Nelson negotiated, they went down to 1.1 or 1.2 trillion and up to 20% tax cuts.

But as even Larry O'Donnell said , a very CW kind of person, Obama compormised with hypothetical Republicans, not real ones, fashioning the bill.  He put in 40% tax cuts at the beginning without getting the commitment of even 1 Republican vote.  It was very poor negotiating.  (Which of course was foreshoadowed by how he precompromised his healthcare reform policy proposal) And it was  exacerbated by his willingness to remove social spending like the family planning money.  That's when they knew he could pushed and when he began to lose control of the process because he acceded to their definiton of what stimulus means.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Republicans may be wrong, but they're not stupid. (4.00 / 1)
This isn't a matter of starting high and getting lower.

For Republicans, more than $300-500 billion is basically unacceptable.  That belief isn't based on where the package started.

[ Parent ]
No they only believe in tax cuts (4.00 / 5)
But the dynamic would have been in Obama's direction. Starting there the dynamic would have been against them.  So they cut 200 billlion, it would still have been better.

 

This isn't a matter of starting high and getting lower.

But it is exactly that, it's negotiating 101.  But it would have the 3-4 moderate Republicans would have gone along with.  I know all the rest of the Republicans would vote against it.  You only had t appeal to those Senators, and only those.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
No, I'm sorry (0.00 / 0)
Forgive my bluntness, but you'd have to be incredibly naive to believe that it would have been that simple.

Hell, I heard a sound bite from Collins today basically saying that if the bill comes back after conference and is more than $800 billion she'll vote against it.  And you're seriously trying to tell me that we could have gotten more than $800 billion if we would have just started higher?

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Why is she saying $800 billion? Because $800 billion was the amount initially given. It's an arbitrary figure, used to make sure that she keeps her position as a kingmaker.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
States are doing their budgets now (4.00 / 3)
Almost all of them have enormous budgets gaps.  Lots of this social spending, education spending was targeted to fill those budget gaps NOW.

If these items are not in this stimulus bill, they will make up the budget gap by cutting programs like education, medicaid, etc.  Each state will be cutting tens of thousand to hundreds of thousands of jobs.  In NYC alone 15000+ teachers could be fired.  In one city alone.  

Not only are these items stimulative, but to have states cut budgets and fire people could turn a recession into a depression.  The cuts in this bill that Ben Nelson just engineered will deepen this economic disaster.

He is doing this out of ignorance and spending too many years drinking the right wing water.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The upcoming years are going to be very drab ones (0.00 / 0)
No jobs, no money, out of sight oil, and bankruptcies. Don't count on the future. Wake up and smell the coffee.
[ Parent ]
We can build schools in Iraq, (4.00 / 11)
... and that's just good sense. Here, building schools is bacon. Wasteful excess.

I can't stand these people.

Hmm... (0.00 / 0)
I have a solution...

Lets have Haliburton build the schools domestically...

[ Parent ]
For what they charged (4.00 / 1)
... we could probably build 10 schools here for every one they failed to properly build over there.

And you have a good point. Though I was only referring to the willingness of lawmakers to go along with the respective projects.

[ Parent ]
60 votes really are needed; really (4.00 / 1)
I don't understand this thread.  Unless someone can prove to me otherwise, there was a very, very real chance nothing would pass in the Senate at all.  Nelson voted for all the good stuff we wanted, earlier, but they didn't pass due to lack of Republican support.

Blame the Republicans who thought this change was needed to vote for the bill, but don't lay this at the feet of Nelson.  This bill is still much, much better than no bill at all.  That would be true even without the ability to fix in conference, but is doubly true knowing the conference will, at a minimum, be a compromise between the House and Senate versions.

You can't just pretend those votes where already there.

Right on, it's like people are completely ignoring (0.00 / 0)
the fact that WE NEED TO HAVE 60 VOTES and it's impossible to get there, currently, without Republicans and EVERY SINGLE Democrat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I would love to have a completely united party, BUT, I want debate and it's completely unreasonable for me to assume just because someone has a D next to their name they're going to vote for a bill that a Democrat wants passed.

Compromise isn't capitulation.  It's the only way we'll get stuff passed.

[ Parent ]
Old Proverb. (0.00 / 0)
Boy walks down the street and sees something curious on the sidewalk.  He picks it up and looks at it.

"Looks like shit".

Then he sniffs it.

"Smells like shit".

Then carefully putting it to his mouth...

"Tastes like shit".

Throwing to the ground as he walks away...

"Damn good thing I didn't step in it"!!!

If he capitulated he might have put it in his back pocket and taken it home.  We are progressives and the others . . . .  well, they are shit!!!  Look around you man!!!  Does it look normal or even anything like you are accustomed to seeing?  It is okay to progressive, even EXTREME in the so-called conventional sense.  Just because it hasn't been that way in oh so long, doesn't make it bad or illegal.  Trust your instincts and act on them!!!

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
And yet, the fact remains: (0.00 / 0)
We need 60 votes.
[ Parent ]
You Don't Get It. (0.00 / 0)
If we can't get 60 votes for something that "MIGHT" work, who cares about anything less?  A shit sandwich doesn't taste better because it is cheaper.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis
[ Parent ]
So don't do anything (4.00 / 3)
is your solution?

We don't have the votes to get something that will work.

Why aren't we pointing out that we need 60 votes for this? So the public knows this is the Republicans obstructing?  

[ Parent ]
The public will know today or tomorrow (0.00 / 0)
But they won't remember a thing next week. Nada.
[ Parent ]
Um... (0.00 / 0)
Yeah... that's not really how politics work...  It sucks, but its true.  
[ Parent ]
Dude, what? (0.00 / 0)
We have to pass something don't we?

I believe that some tax cuts will help stimulate the economy, but not all.

If we had a bill that would start to get us out of this mess in 2 years or another that started in 1.5 years or we did nothing and it would take 5 years to START to get out, but we had to settle for the 2 year one, I think I'd be happy with that bill.

Even though we may believe we could have done better, we know we could have done worse.

[ Parent ]
But... (4.00 / 2)
The bill that Obama asked for, the bill that the House passed - those DON'T GET US OUT OF THIS MESS IN 2 YEARS.

Obama's economic team's analysis shows that: they still have something like 8% unemployment 2 years out. The analysis basically assumes that recovery will happen - providing no mechanism for getting that recovery going.

Look - if government does nothing, we're basically screwed indefinitely: the deflationary trap sets in and the private sector will never restart.

If government does what the House passed, we're close to screwed indefinitely: that puts us on the 1990s Japan path, except not quite as good as Japan did. Japan lost a decade in the deflationary trap, finally getting pulled out by China's boom and our real estate bubble.

But at least if the House bill gets enacted, we don't throw our schools down the toilet. If we throw our schools down the toilet at the same time as committing to a decade of stagflation at best - where does the economic recovery ever come from?

[ Parent ]
No it doesn't (0.00 / 0)
we in agreement...I don't think any of us are happy, but we're backed into a corner, and yeah sometimes that happens even in the majority.

FDR had a lot more support in Congress for his policies than Obama does. The best we can do right now is keep ourselves above water enough to make the case in 2010 that the GOP is obstructing recovery and wipe them out once and for all.

Maybe third time's a charm.

They've proven they can't compromise or be scared into siding with us. They're suicidal.  

[ Parent ]
The numbers are insignificant (0.00 / 0)
I just threw them out there as an example.  Use 2, 5 and 10 or 4, 10 and 15 if you want.

My only point is sometimes you don't get what you ask for, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[ Parent ]
I'm using indefinite (4.00 / 2)
Indefinite means a lot longer than 15. Indefinite means nobody has any good theory for what would possible get us out of the deflationary trap if government doesn't spend enough.

It's not a matter of 2, 4, 10, 15, or 25 years. It's this: either government spends enough and we reach full employment in 3 or 4 years, or government spends but not enough and we slog along just under 10% unemployment until some outside force (world war III perhaps??) drags us out, or government spends nothing and you can kiss the USA goodbye.

The numbers are significant. They are extremely significant. If government doesn't spend enough, nobody knows how this recession will ever end.

My point is that nobody really asked for what was needed. Obama has a big enough platform that he could have told the public what was needed in spite of the media distractions. But he still hasn't. He hasn't explained that the economists say government needs to spend more that $1 trillion. If he had put in the effort to convince the public, and if he put some serious pressure on the senate moderates, and we still ended up where we are, then I would probably agree with you. As it is, you're saying that what wasn't tried is impossible anyway. I don't buy it - I think it was possible, but Obama didn't try.

Of course, maybe it'll turn out that progressives are wrong, that conservatives are right, that Keynes was a charlatan, and that the economy will magically recover in 2 years no matter what. If so, I'll vote Republican for the rest of my life.

[ Parent ]
You didn't understand my point (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how many years is going to take, but I'm not trying to predict it.  The years I used was to make an example out of what I was saying.  Re-read my post.

You're digging deeper than my original post.

[ Parent ]
OK! (4.00 / 2)
Pass whatever is thrown to you and feel happy and satisfied?  Is that what ya'll are saying?  Do you really think incremental political gains, even significant ones, are satisfactory?  The neocons (including many in the Clinton administration) have been undercutting this country for almost 3 decades!  President Obama has been left the largest, juiciest shit sandwich in American History.  Are you really thinking that we can push here and then pull back to some place that is "centrist" and then get on with the progressive agenda at a later date?  Does that sound rational to anyone who has lived here in the past 5 or 10 years?  We need a revolution, nothing less.  It is a tall order to overcome the bias of the beltway media and the corporate MSM.  I know that.  Playing nice politics and implementing long term strategies ain't gonna git it!!  This is a one and done term if we don't start making some noise.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis
[ Parent ]
We don't have a choice frank (0.00 / 0)
we don't have a choice right now.  
[ Parent ]
I think you are overly negative on the vote count (4.00 / 1)
Look at the votes on the various amendments. It's quite obvious that we had 60-61 votes for the stimulus.  The three Republicans, Nelson, and Lieberman would have voted for it at the end of the day.  The compromise was unnecessary, and due to Nelson wanting to cut out Democratic priorities.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
Collins, Nelson and Snowe all said at various points during the week that they weren't going to vote for the stimulus was it was drastically cut from the House version.
[ Parent ]
We need 51 votes plus Biden (4.00 / 1)
That's all it takes to change the rules.  They threaten going nuclear.  We do it.  That's how it worked until 2 years ago. If they want a real fillibuster, let them try but never this crap.
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
we need 60 votes to pass any budget bill that spends on the deficit...it has nothing to do with a filibuster.

[ Parent ]
We makr the rules (4.00 / 3)
These rules are not the Ten Commandments come down from Mt. Sinai.  The Senate makes its own rules and we control the Senate.  To hold ourselves captive to "the rules" and sentence the country to semi-permanent malaise because of the rules is the height of folly.  The Republicans rarely found themselves held captive by the rules.  That's their politica; genius.

Their nuclear option thing says it straight out.  Your darned rules aren't in the constitution.  Even the threat of eliminating any Republican influence for years can bring forth miracles.

Think outside the box.

[ Parent ]
Why aren't Senate dems, Obama looking to change the rules? (0.00 / 0)
I'm an American citizen, and I'd like to know!

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
If he had started out stronger the evolving dynamic would have been different (4.00 / 1)
The Republican Senators would have come over because they would be under public pressure not to screw the country.  Instead he handed them the dynamic and they got to push those 3-4 Republicans to go with their party instead of the people.  It's known as whipping the vote.  He let the whip fall out of his hands and into their theirs.

Someone here linked to these Harry Truman quotes. Obama must not have ever read them..because he violated each precept.

"Carry the battle to them.  Don't let them bring it to you.  Put them on the defensive.  And don't ever apologize for anything."

"I don't like bipartisan.  Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know that he's going to vote against me."

He let them carry the battle to him.  He let them put him on the defensive. And he apologized.

And he didn't know that this was the Republican definition of bipartisan....voting against you.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Nope, I'm blaming Nelson (4.00 / 6)
I don't care if he would have voted for something better. Because he was willing to vote for something worse, we get this crock of shit and his bullshit justification for it.

Deadlock would not have been a problem. In a debate between cutting education funding and not cutting education funding, there can only be one winner, especially when a very popular president is looking increasingly willing to campaign for the good guys.

Nelson and co. caving were the problem, and I for one blame them. I want his favourite earmarks this Congress tracked down, and I want every one yanked from the bill it is attached to. I want a spree of targetted vindictiveness towards him. Not necessarily because it'll achieve something. Just because it's the only leverage we really have over him.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Looking long term... (4.00 / 1)
My guess is we will see some of these items up again later....
[ Parent ]
Did you notice his hair? (0.00 / 0)
Do you think it's really his....It's incredibly close to his face.  

I vowed elsewhere that from now I would take every oppurtunity to mock him since he has so mocked his own party, president and country.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The votes ARE there (4.00 / 6)
We are making a huge, huge mistake if we take their no votes for granted. Politics is about getting those votes.

Who here truly believes that if a public ruckus is raised over the next few days, that Nelson and Collins and Specter and the others will lay off tens of thousands of teachers?

One of the biggest problems with progressives is their failure to understand that "we don't have 60 votes" is a question and not an answer.

Republicans want us to sit on our ass and assume nothing can be done. We have the power to force 3 or 4 of them to vote to restore these cuts. The question I see here is, will we use it?

[ Parent ]
There's a perception here.... (0.00 / 0)
...that the stimulus is massively popular... it isn't... oh, it's not as unpopular as Republicans and Rasmussen think, but it's also not popular.  The GOP has put enough fear, uncertainty and doubt into this that most people view it as a necessary evil...

Obama is going to have to sell this thing... I think he will... it will be a full court press this week, and I think that in the end, there will be enough popular pressure to get this thing to pass with larger margins... but, it's still going to be a tough fight...

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!

[ Parent ]
It is a necessary evil (4.00 / 2)
If most people view it that way, then they're absolutely right.

The government spending it's way out of recession is nearly the least efficient way of getting out of recession. The reason we want the government to do it now is that all the more efficient ways are used up - and the only other thing to try is to inflate our way out of recession.

The part that is somewhat counter-intuitive, and that probably most people don't understand/believe, is that tax cuts aren't as effective as government spending. What's good for the individual isn't good for the overall economy: I'd love a big fat tax rebate right now, but I wouldn't spend most of it.

But other than that, I think most people have exactly the right understanding of this stimulus: without it we lose both paddles and the canoe turns over on our trip up shit creek.

[ Parent ]
It's not the moderates that's the problems (4.00 / 2)
It's the conservatives that has forced these cuts. I hate to think that education bore the brunt of the cuts but I hope that what's left will in fact aid schools and teachers.
Aside from education, I honestly thought that the bill needed to be trimmed. I like the idea of infrastructure and clean energy and health care but feel that a lot of programs could have been forgone to make this thing really special.
I figure it should be a mix of short term and long term job growth.
the moderates enabled the conservatives (4.00 / 2)
There are not 40 out and out conservaitve. in the Republican party...there are a few moderate Republicnas and they could have been pushed to support this bill as is.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
See... (4.00 / 2)
I disagree on Nelson and Collins...

I don't think they are the Bushies who are outright trying to kill everyone...

I think they THINK they are doing the right thing and are too out of touch to realize that its the WRONG THING...

So if I may offer a comparison...

The middle class and poor are a child.   The Bushies and their ilk are the dad, horribly beating and abusing the child.   Dem Leadership is the mom who sits by and lets it happen, even though she knows its wrong... Nelson and Collins are Grandma who has an idea its happening BUT figure if they ignore it Dad will change and it will be alright.

That being said, on a selfish note, the $15K tax credit would be awful useful as we try to move into a bigger house in an over priced area.    

Yes! (4.00 / 1)
They are poor, misguided assholes that don't deserve our congenial disagreement.  Get up in their lying faces and tell them they are out of touch with where the country is at and where we need to get to!  For Chrissakes, how much fucking condescension are you willing to accept before you are willing to go somewhat ballistic on their sorry asses?

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis
[ Parent ]
Well.. (0.00 / 0)
1) I know that acting like an asshole to people who feel they have more power than you doesn't work.   You can get up in there faces and 1 of 3 things will happen... 1) They ignore you... 2) They pretend to listen until you leave and then ignore you. 3) THe police, their bodyguards or someone much stronger than you who hangs out with them kicks the shit out of you and you get arrested.   I myself would choose option 3 if someone were to get into my face like that, except it would be me throwing the fists...  but then I don't like people who act like ass hats.

2) I'm not saying I feel they should be pitied.  Don't be an ass hat and try to find meaning that isn't there.  I said, I don't think they are malevolent in their actions, rather they are ignorant.  

3)  Write a letter, form a protest, make calls.   DON'T WHINE AND BITCH AND MOAN on a blog.   Now Bowers didn't explicitly call for action, but for those who have read him for the last 5 years or so, that's a given in his Lets fix it in Committee.   I give Chris credit, because most of the time he tries to take action on the things he complains about.    Follow suit.  Calm Down.  THink Rationally and don't be an asshat.

[ Parent ]
It's late, I apologize. (4.00 / 2)
Not going off on you specifically.  I just feel that there is not compromise with these jerks.  It is truly unfortunate that those of us who want to live in a kinder, gentler America have to suck up to the duplicitous Blue Dogs.  But, I posted above that I spent a large portion of my evening protesting to many in the Democratic leadership, the White House and Ben Nelson specifically.  

Maybe I'm just too old for this shit anymore, I don't know.  I remember the student protests of the mid 60s and most of us then understood the call to action.  There was no internet so I understand that it is a different game today.  Plus, we live in a quasi-police state.  

Having said that, I am very leary of incremental change or even it's acceptance as legitimate socio-political strategy.  You only have to look at the history of US politics over the past 30 years to understand where I'm coming from.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
While Ben Nelson is a problem (0.00 / 0)
Even with Nelson, we'd still have to deal with the Republicans to get enough votes.

None of has have given up, but we're not getting what we want next week, not out of this bill, we know that.

So we live to fight another day.  

[ Parent ]
whether it's venality or ignorance it's still harmful (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Filibuster (4.00 / 3)
To the folks who know more about this than I do: What would be the real-world consequences if Harry Reid decided to call the Republicans' bluff and force them to actually filibuster?  Would they actually go forward with it?  And if they did, would the media portray them as obstructionists or scrappy, Jimmy Stewart-esque heroes?  I assume they would spend the entire time talking about the one or two "bad" things in the stimulus bill in order to drive down its popularity.  And then Pres. Obama would give a speech standing in front of an unemployment office on national television?  
Doesn't matter (0.00 / 0)
we'd need 60 votes filibuster or not.

Although the amendment process that's been going on is essentially a filibuster.  

[ Parent ]
Let's say the filibuster goes on 4 weeks, and another 500,000 jobs are lost (0.00 / 0)
Do you think the filibuster will then go on for another 4 weeks? If Obama sells the stimulus to the public during this time?

What if the filibuster goes on for 8 weeks, and another ...

Frankly, if Obama concludes that bi-partisanship is doomed to failure, because of a lack of good-will by Congressional Republicans, enduring such a protracted job-sacrificing filibuster would have a silver lining. If he gets stung badly enough, he may then 1) take all future major initiatives to the public more openly 2) take on media reform 3) successfully blame the worsening of any ensuing Recession/Depression on selfish Republicans.

Some people posting here seem deathly afraid of a deep Recession or Depression. But selfishness got us to this point, some 'karmic payback' is inevitable, and if we have to learn a hard lesson, well, let's at least try and correctly identify the root causes.

I think Obama should address the nation, and use the "D" word - i.e., "Depression". He should make clear that while he's willing to work with Republicans to avoid or mitigate an incipient Depression, he cannot sell out the country's long term interest* because of some intransigent Republicans. And therefore he cannot abide endless compromise. (He should also point out that bad legislation that got us here, such as repeal of Glass Steagall, had some supporters in both parties.)

He should promise, openly, to identify some of the worst offenders, and work for their defeat in upcoming elections, starting now. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, he can go after a few Democrats, too. Some Democrats may consider that disloyal, but he is the President, after all. You go argue with him!

I can suggest a name for the targets of these very public hit lists - "Depression Republicans" and "Depression Democrats". When he goes campaigning for the future defeat  for Senator X, in their home state, it's important that it be primarily used as an issues-oriented teaching opportunity, with the Senator's voting record used to illustrate his points almost as an after-thought. Nobody wants to see the office of the Presidency degraded by appearing to be used for a personal vendetta.

Also, a bit off topic, but I heard Steve Forbes interviewed this past week, and liked a good deal of what he had to say. I do think some Republicans are worth listening to and compromising with. Whether there are any such Republicans in Congress, is another question. :-)

* cough, cough. Like he did with FISA or a no-strings-attached bank bailout.



DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Republicans have nothing to lose by sending the economy into a tailspin. They also have the media on their side. Obama can yell and scream all he wants, most Americans are going to listen to what the Kyra Phillips and Chris Matthews are telling them, and what they're telling them is "spending bad, tax cuts good" "800 billion is too much money"

In short, yeah, I think the Republicans could keep this going another 4 weeks, but my point was we need 60 votes no matter what.

No matter what, we need a few Republicans to vote for this bill...none of them will unless we water it down, and with the only means of communication to the masses shrilling for our rivals, we could be seeing a complete loss for our side here.

Steve Forbes? Really? Mr flat tax?  

[ Parent ]
And my point is that the obstructionist Republicans have more to lose (0.00 / 0)
And my point is that the obstructionist Republicans have more to lose by delaying an effective stimulus, at the current horrific rate of job losses - provided that there is an intelligent counter-attack by Obama.

While I agree that the media is a disaster, I can't buy that if Obama raises a stink (with Presidential decorum), the media has a Svengali-like ability to negate it.

So, unlike you, apparently, I expect enough Republicans to capitulate, so that the Dems get 60 votes, as long as the Democrats don't blink.

All that said, I doubt Obama has enough nerve to call anybody a "Depression Republican" or "Depression Democrat". Doing so also runs counter to his tendency (which I take as sincere) for polite consensus.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Propose the education spending on its own (4.00 / 1)
Let the Republicans vote against education over and over again while the school year is shortened and teachers are let go.  
Now that... (0.00 / 0)
is intelligent long term strategy.

[ Parent ]
And that may happen (0.00 / 0)
Which is why I'm sorta okay with having certain things that I'd like to see in the stimulus package omitted.
[ Parent ]
Obama's new best friends (0.00 / 0)
I know everybody can't stand them right now, but President Obama needs to make Senators Nelson, Collins, Snowe, and Specter his new BFFs as soon as possible.  They are the key to getting legislation passed.  
As I said before... (4.00 / 3)
I seriously don't understand what the "moderate Democrats" are doing on this.  

They can't be concerned about the political repercussions, as the bill is broadly popular.  They can't be feeling pressure from lobbyists, as business seems to support, or at least be silent, on the bill.  

The Republicans, I get.  They want the stimulus to fail because then Obama can be painted as a failure, and it's their one shot of a comeback in 2010.  

But these Democrats - I honestly still cannot figure out what they're thinking.  Even if they're worried the public will sour on the stimulus, watering it down won't be a real defense when they're up for re-election.  

The more I've thought about it today, the more I've come to realize two things.  One, some/all of them must be fucking idiots who have no idea what economic stimulus is.  Two, they share common values with the Republicans - that government spending is bad, and tax cuts are better stimulus because...well, because the Republicans say so.  

Anyway, beyond this, the bill seems like a shit sandwich, but I'm not sure it's the end of the world.  There were always talks of a second stimulus anyway, and one would assume if Obama learns from his mistakes here, and another one is needed, He'll be working on the head count for it months in advance.  The most important thing is how the bill that gets brought to Obama's desk will be spun by the media.  Will it be spun as a win for Republicans, or for Obama?    

It's not really that many moderates (4.00 / 1)
It's really just Nelson and, a little bit, Lieberman.

As we discovered, the rest of them were in this gang to try and salvage unsuccessfully what we wanted.

The group is really just Nelson, Collins , Snowe and Specter...so really Ben Nelson is our only Democrat, and he's from a state where the stimulus probably isn't all that popular.

When this is passed, my guess is it's spun as a win for Obama, but the media will probably use our dislike for it to spin it as a failure for Obama to satisfy his base.

But we can use this opportunity to rail against the Republicans in 2010. Make every Republican candidate, Portman, Blunt, Rubio, whoever runs, defend this.

Based on speeches by Feinstein, Whitehouse, Leahy and Kerry today, it would appear they're not thrilled with this either.  

[ Parent ]
I just wrote up an analysis, part III of the bill (4.00 / 6)
It is here, on The Economic Populist.

42% of the bill is tax cuts.  Just unreal since they have little stimulative effect.

Things like COBRA (which is usually too expensive anyway for people to afford!), social safety nets are stimulative, beyond the obvious of keeping people from the abyss.

The worse part is what I found on the projects.

I feel very depressed.  You cannot get politicians to just do some plain sense things that you know will work to save your soul...or let's say the country's soul.

We're only looking at an economic depression here.

The only good news is if McCain had won the election assuredly from what he wanted to do in this bill....we would absolutely have rocket fuel to help us go over the cliff economically.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Obama is a conservative guy. His family is conservative. (0.00 / 0)
It's just that he is so very charming and quick and smart. And next to Bush he just shines. But the shine will dull and people will get critical and ask more questions.

Look at how long it took for the masses to turn against Bush. Not until it hit them in the wallet. Hard. And really this stimulus no matter what it is isn't going to help unless it goes into infrastructure. Because this is the last of the big money and 42% of it for sure is being pissed away on tax cuts.

Tax cuts for christ's sake. To give everyone a little more in their paycheck so their expenses can rise to meet income.

They are just so fucking stupid I am going to forget about change and begin to think more about art.  

[ Parent ]
The "shine" is gone (4.00 / 1)
Between this impotent "stimulus" and Obama's pathetic new bank "bailout" plan we're all pretty much fucked. Nothing has changed but the rhetoric. I wash my hands of the lot of them.
[ Parent ]
Harvard elite (0.00 / 0)
I do not know why everyone puts the label of conservative instead of a corporate laden oligarchy running the country...
one can be a member of this elite executive class and reside in any party.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
What's being ignored is that President Obama is actually getting (4.00 / 1)
what he originally wanted.  Folks are complaining about the 42% mark for taxes, but President Obama's first proposal was $775 billion (up to $310 billion or 40% in tax cuts).

That came downward after the House wrote up the bill ($275 billion) and is now back to where it pretty much was originally ($328 billion).

At the moment, spending is at $452 billion (down slightly from $465 billion in his original proposal).

That's assuming the numbers hold.  They say the bill will actually be somewhere around $800-820 billion when the amendments are added in so he may actually get a bit more spending.

This is probably why he's happy to get this through with little Republican support (because it's basically what he wanted to begin with).

If Obama wanted it like this (4.00 / 1)
all along, then that only means he was an idiot before the bill took final form instead of after. It doesn't make it a good bill.
[ Parent ]
Better deal than I read it first time (0.00 / 0)
In the end, there were $96 billion of cuts - whittling the Senate bill to $780 billion - with about $50 billion of the cuts coming from the Collins-Nelson proposal.

Looks like the gang only cut 50 billion, the other 50 prob came out of tax cuts (Hopefully the business ones or AMT). still bad and the conference HAS TO add the school building provision back but not bad as a 100 billion spending cut rumored at first.

I don't think the Unemployment health care was cut, looks like it was reduced  subsidies though for cobra (down to 50% from 75%).

Anyone know how much extension (# of weeks) this bill ads to unemployment benefits?

Mccain mention that the bill will bigger than the house? (0.00 / 0)
He said that... Is this true?
Well, it's festooned with all sorts of things. (0.00 / 0)
We need more spending festooning.
[ Parent ]
The Problem With Fixing (0.00 / 0)
the thing in conference is that another vote will be necessary in the Senate, and the Republican Taliban will have time to get to the three "moderates".

Seating Al Franken has to be moved to the front burner.

not really, they are in deep blue states and (0.00 / 0)
penn. has a huge unemployment rate. they are too vulnerable to fold.
[ Parent ]
and we have a 13.9% U-6 unemployment rate now -- how many jobs were removed w/these cuts? (4.00 / 1)
The Other Unemployment Rate: 13.9% ---http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/06/the-other-unemployment-rate-139/

...the government's broader measure of unemployment hit a more stunning level: 13.9%, up from 13.5% in December.

The figure, which largely accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or can't find full-time jobs, is the highest since the Labor Department started the data series in 1994. It's just shy of a discontinued and even broader measure that hit 15% in late 1982, when the official unemployment rate was 10.8%. (That data series goes back to the 1970s.)

How does the government calculate two unemployment rates? The widely followed figure is based on people who do not have a job, are available for work and have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks. The official definition of "actively looking for work" includes contacting an employer, employment agency, job center or friends; sending out resumes or filling out applications; and answering or placing ads, among other things.

The 13.9% unemployment rate - known as the "U-6? for its Bureau of Labor Statistics classification - includes everyone in the official unemployment rate plus "marginally attached workers," who are neither working nor looking for work but say they want a job and have looked for work recently, and people who are employed part-time for economic reasons - they want and are available for full-time work but took a part-time schedule because that's all they could get.

Because it's a relatively young data series, the U-6 doesn't get much attention beyond researchers. But it may deserve more focus over the coming year as the labor market continues its purge. Many employers are still focused on cutting jobs quickly to get through this downturn, pushing job-seekers aside for an extended period.  ...


Baker: "will produce 500,000 fewer jobs" (4.00 / 2)
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme... --
...congratulations to Senators Susan Collins and Ben Nelson for having negotiated a stimulus package that will produce 500,000 fewer jobs than the one passed by the House. Who knows, if the House had its way, the unemployment rate might never cross 10 percent. ...

[ Parent ]
Firedoglake has it at 1,271,000 fewer jobs -- (4.00 / 1)
http://firedoglake.com/2009/02...

The bottom line on the changes demanded by "centrist" gang of four Senators Collins, Specter, Lieberman and Nelson is that the compromise Senate bill will create about 728,143 fewer jobs less than the House bill.  This is a back on the envelope figure and very rough, but if anything it should be a slight underestimate.  If you compare the compromised Senate Bill to the pre-gang Senate bill, it comes out to 1,271,000 fewer jobs. ...

[ Parent ]
I doubt President Obama would have been okay with it unless (0.00 / 0)
it created his stated goal of 3-4M jobs.

Which means I call bullshit on any and all of the type of analysis referenced above.

[ Parent ]
Snowe's a sick puppy (0.00 / 0)
She had the same hair style in a 1979 photo.  It lookes sexy then she looks drab now.

Her background is a mix of Dickens, Horatio Alger, and is sort of creepy.  Parents were blue collar.  Her mother died when she was eight (breast cancer) and her father died a year later when she was nine.  She was turned over to an aunt and then pretty immediately farmed out to a Greek school or home school in Garrison, NY from third to eigth grades.  Finally it was back to Maine for high school and the U of Maine at Orono.

After that she got into politics right off the bat.  Got married to a guy named Snowe.  Didn't work.  Got divorced and then got elected to the House and married the other Maine US Rep who got elected Governor all the time moving up as others retired and perfecting this above it all middle of the road crap.

If there's a psychologist out there what kind of fragile psyche does this.  The constant need for approval and center stage and don't rock the boat but rock the boat a little.

Yes, let's rate her on her sex appeal and hair, (4.00 / 1)
because there are no serious  matters at hand?

Dude, you're way too smart for that comment.

[ Parent ]
Snowe's first husband was killed in 1973 (0.00 / 0)
From her US Senate website biography:

>> 1973 - Elected to the Maine House seat left vacant by the death of her first husband, the late Peter Snowe. <<

Sen Snowe's entry on Wikipedia explains that Snowe was killed in an automobile accident.

I find much to admire in her career, just from reading in Wiki. Her friendship with her current husband began at least as early as 1983, when they served in Congress together. His bio says they dated for six years before marrying in February, 1989.

From what is available on Wiki, she hasn't been afraid to cause an occasional ruckus among die-hard Republicans.  

[ Parent ]
well i guess i have gotten more conservative as i got older (4.00 / 1)
in my younger days I was a Maoist (pre cultural revolution) now I consider myself a socialist in the Bernie Saunders mold. :)

I think it used to be the case that people got more conservative because their incomes and assets went up, now most of us are watching those things disappear. It is definately a radicalizing experience, especially when we are terriffied of losing our jobs just because we are getting older and then watching wall st execs getting bonuses with tax dollars after they destroyed their companies and the economy.

Nelson (0.00 / 0)
I hate ben Nelson.  Would it be belaboring the obvious to say that the Better Democrats program needs to target him for political destruction?
I'd love to send him a nasty letter (0.00 / 0)
but he knows my dad.  Nebraska is a small state.
[ Parent ]
Amen, Chris (0.00 / 0)
My uncle and his son lost their jobs in the same week.  Many of my friends are out of work.  Some have been for months.  On a day when the unemployment rate hit a 17 year high, with no signs of slowing down, the Senate made a marginally effective stimulus bill even less effective.  Money for the states and education spending are not "sacred cows," they were some of the most important provisions of the bill.  Nelson, Collins and the rest of the gang cut not based on any evidence, but solely because they wanted to see their names highlighted in the Washington Post.  They are stoking their own vanity while the people are losing their jobs by the millions.

Here's hoping for steely resolve by Pelosi in conference, defeat for Collins and Snowe when the time comes, and a primary campaign against Ben Nelson.

Well said Chris.  The disconnect between corporate hacks in the Senate and the people they represent has never been larger.

"I've heard that you are supposed to get more conservative when you get older." (0.00 / 0)
Actually, the line is "you become more conservative the more you have something to conserve."  In other words, if you get wealthy ...
Kabuki theater. Or the dog that didn't bark. (0.00 / 0)
The key is to distinguish between what the GOP Republicans wanted, what the Centrists originally wanted and what they actually got.

Because originally it looked like the targets included Job Training, Child Care Grants, Transit, and Food Stamps. But in the end none of that got touched. What did get hit was Education, mostly in the form of direct aid to the states. Which is to say the single most likely line item to generate pressure from home state governors and legislators.

And then the list ended up getting padded by line items generally supported by conservatives including Cops, Firemen, Homeland Security, and the Coast Guard.

I suspect most of this is just political theatre inteded to throw the Centrists a bone but designed to be reversed piece-meal in subsequent legislation in the normal FY 2010 Appropriations process. The bill titles practically write themselves. After all who is going to vote against the Public Safety and Homeland Security Act of 2009. Boom all that money for cops, firefighters and for pandemic planning (under guise of counter terrorism) all neatly get tucked away. Just as all that Education spending can be tucked in some State Fiscal Stabilization Act. And maybe Head Start funding can find a home in that bill as well.

In other words I hope/believe that there has been a quiet deal struck with Collins and Nelson able to burnish their deficit hawk credentials in the short term, Obama getting credit for Bi-Partisanship and Pelosi knowing she has a green light to add these programs back in later.

State help (4.00 / 2)
The portion of the stimulus that goes to the states must be in this bill.  They are working on the budgets now.  If the money isn't there people will lose their jobs and the spiral continues.

The part that can at least theoretically wait is the infrastructure spending.  While that portion is some of the best stimulus out there (which we need as soon as possible), it doesn't have the same time pressure the state help has.

[ Parent ]
"Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said." (0.00 / 0)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

... Obama endorsed the moderates' effort and brought its leaders --  Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.),  Susan Collins (R-Maine) and  Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- to the White House to discuss their proposed cuts. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel attended the final meetings in Reid's office last night to work out lingering differences. Before Emanuel arrived, Collins said, Democrats were advocating $63 billion in cuts. "Then Rahm got involved, and a much better proposal came forward," she said. ...

they're using Rahm to force Dems to cave.

Stimulus Open Thread | 180 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox